Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
There is no doubt that the event now simply known as 9/11 proved to be a turning
point in our history. Nothing would ever be the same again politically, legally, and
socially. Besides being the most devastating workplace disaster ever to occur in New
York City and, of course, the nation, it was a moment that defined a generation and rivals
similar generation-defining moments such as 12/7/41 and 11/22/63. Ninety years before
9/11, however, another incident claimed the title of the worst workplace disaster in the
annals of NYC and national history. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire on March 25,
1911, was a pivotal historical event in terms of its tragedy and aftermath. Time has
unfortunately consigned the Fire to near-oblivion. Indeed, few history textbooks present
the incident and its far-reaching political/legal/social effects in the detail that it deserves.
This article supports the importance of closely examining this historic event by assisting
educators with an effective strategy for doing so.
In his recently acclaimed social history, Triangle: The Fire That Changed
America, David Von Drehle (2003) provides a comprehensive examination of the Fire
and its seemingly forgotten historical importance. Using this powerful book as a basis,
the purpose of this article is to provide middle school and high school social studies
educators with an adaptable story/simulation-based lesson on this crucial event comprised
of four parts that can be executed over approximately three or four conventional class
periods:
1. An Introduction, which sets the historical/social/cultural/political stage leading up
to the Fire;
2. The Fire itself, with a focus on the pure tragedy of the incident;
2
3. The Aftermath, which ultimately resulted in a trial of the owner, numerous fire
safety protection laws, a shift in political perspective, and a new perspective on
womens rights;
4. A Trial Simulation, which recreates the actual trial of the Triangle owners and
offers students the opportunity to experience the Fires aftermath through the
justice system.
As an effective teaching strategy, the simulation can be a very powerful instrument for
engaging students in the learning process and there is solid support to document its
effectiveness (Smith 1996, 73). Designed to replicate aspects of an event or experience
in the safe confines of the classroom, a simulation can enhance student involvement
beyond mere discussion or reading into an activity that itself becomes a focus for
analysis, reflection, and discussion. The effective execution of a simulation provides
students with a concrete and meaningful experience from which to draw for analyzing
and understanding an abstract event or issue. Younger learners especially frequently
require a concrete reference in order to make sense of complex concepts.
In regard to the simulation strategy, the mock trial simulation has proven to be
among the more interactive and effective in this category (Shepelak 1996, 399). As an
excursion into collaborative learning, Karraker (1993) noted that the pre-trial activities
provide experience in information-gathering and critical thinking and that the debriefing
aspect is valuable in revealing others thinking processes. Chapman and Cousins (1974)
found that the strategy more effectively helps students develop desirable attitudes,
enhances critical thinking, and provides an integrated and realistic view of the subject
matter while improving decision-making skills in the process.
3
The first three parts represent background information for students leading up to
the simulation. I suggest this information be related to students as a story told either
by the teacher or dividing it into parts and having students present to their peers.
Photos can be obtained (see the suggested sources or the featured book) as
supplements for the activity and provide a powerful resource for further engaging
students. The outcome of the actual trial itself, however, must be withheld from them
until after the simulation. Whether the simulation results in a conviction or acquittal
will be of secondary importance. Rather, as part of a post-simulation debriefing,
students should then be led to discuss social issues and their relationship to law, and
an overview of the trial system and its possible technicalities. Follow-up independent
research projects based upon suggested sources could also be utilized as a check on
what has been learned and also to include additional information about the event.
Past-to-present connections can certainly be made, but part of the post-simulation
discussion should also note that major social issues are many times examined by the
legal system but are ultimately resolved through legislative measures.
Introduction
The significance of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire on Saturday, March 25,
1911, was not simply in its 146 victims. Though it was sensational, it was not
unusual. Death in the industrial workplace was an almost routine occurrence in the
early 20th century. By the end of the first decade, it was estimated that at least 100
Americans were killed on the job daily. Death was found in the mines, on sinking
commercial ships, in wrecked trains, in the mills, and in any operation with exposed
4
machinery. Workplace safety was not a priority and as a result disaster followed
disaster. Little changed in this regard until the Fire. It was different not because the
entire blaze, from spark to embers, lasted half an hour (Von Drehle 2003, 2)) or
because 123 young women and 23 young men tragically perished, but rather because
it served as a catalyst that ultimately forced fundamental reforms in labor, unionism,
womens rights, and the demand for a more equal and humane society.
The Progressive Movement was peaking during the 20th centurys first decade.
Reform was the spirited order of the day, especially in the field of labor where unions
were finding strength and strikes were yielding positive results. President Theodore
Roosevelt embodied this pure possibility as his second term concluded and the nation
appeared to moving forward at a fast pace. Isolated political strongholds, however,
symbolized the exact opposite of liberal Progressive intentions, especially in NYCs
Tammany Hall, the model of the political machine. It would be in this arena that
labor activists would make a national case, namely through the NYC garment district.
Shirtwaists were womens blouses and one of Americas first truly classshattering fashions (Von Drehle 2003, 44) and represented acceptable garb for nearly
every activity and occasion. It was truly big business: there were over 500 blouse
factories in the city employing nearly 40,000 workers, most of them young immigrant
women. Owned by Max Blanck and Isaac Harris- immigrants themselves- the
Triangle Shirtwaist Company was the largest operation of its kind with over 500
employees located in the upper three floors of the ten-story Asch Building in the heart
of Manhattan. Blanck and Harris owned several such factories but the Triangle was
their flagship and they rapidly became wealthy businessmen.
5
General conditions were, however, basically deplorable and factory life was
outright humiliating: female workers were followed into toilets and hustled back to
work; their paychecks were commonly shortchanged as were their lunch breaks; time
clocks were discreetly adjusted to lengthen an already too long workday; and perhaps
most degrading of all, upon leaving work they were searched like thieves (Von
Drehle 2003, 46-47) to prevent theft. Ironically, the male-dominated trade unions
took little notice and offered scant support to these powerless, disenfranchised
women.
But the slow transformation of the industry also transformed the labor plight of
women. The new loft skyscrapers were rearranging NYCs skyline and also the
garment industry by housing the entire operation under one roof, saving time and
transportation costs in the bargain. Blanck and Harris became masters of this concept
and increased their fortunes, but in reality, no one- contractors or city authorities- paid
meaningful attention to laws against crowding and the ensuing dangers that
accompanied it.
The new concept brought with it two major problems. First, at least half of
Manhattans garment workers toiled on the 7th floor or above, which was at least one
floor higher than the city fire department could reach (Von Drehle 2003, 119) by
ladder. Second, factory owners were more widely vulnerable to unions and labor
strife than ever before.
Finally unionized, the Womens Waistmakers Union conducted a general strike
lasting three tumultuous months during the latter part of 1909 and early 1910. It
would herald the long-term future of womens rights, immigrant laws, and labor well
6
into the mid-20th century. In the short-term, few factory owners- despite banding
together themselves- managed to successfully resist the strike and were forced to
recognize the legitimacy of the union. The two most prominent owners- Blanck and
Harris- vigorously and stubbornly held out, but in the end finally settled with the
union on higher wages and shorter hours. Their only victory was in successfully
resisting the unions demand for a closed shop. A year after the strike, these two
owners would symbolize the villany of a tragedy.
The Fire
Shortly before closing time on Saturday afternoon, March 25, 1911, a fire broke
out on the 8th floor of the Asch Building, site of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. It
will never be definitively known how the fire started, although the city fire marshal
would later conclude that someone may have tossed a match or cigarette butt in a
scrap bin before it was completely extinguished. What is known is that the March
wind cruelly blustered up the elevator shafts and open doorways and windows,
rapidly escalating the flames and bringing death with it.
Panic ensued almost as fast as the flash fire itself. Every available window was
flung open and workers swarmed onto narrow balconies. Alert workers raced to
firehoses which were situated in every stairwell on every floor. But for reasons
unknown, turning the pressure valves yielded no water pressure, rendering the hoses
completely useless. Workers quickly realized the astounding velocity with which the
fire was growing (Von Drehle 2003, 123). The two freight elevators which were
customarily reserved for worker use were only temporarily operational. Although a
7
large number of workers did manage to escape by them, an inferno in the shafts
quickly compromised their use.
As the panic intensified, workers piled up against the doors only to discover that
stairway doors in the Asch Building were designed to swing inward, because the
stairway landings were too narrow to accommodate outward-swinging doors (Von
Drehle 2003, 126). Workers jammed against them so tightly that they couldnt get
them open. Worse still, some survivors came across doors that were apparently
locked (several survivors later testified that ALL of the doors routinely had keys left
in them), forcing them to seek other alternatives of escape. Two possibilities were the
two main stairways. One did lead to the street below, but few utilized it before flames
completely blocked the way. The other stairway, ironically, led to the roof where the
only hope for survival was to escape to the surrounding taller buildings.
The blaze became a firestorm:
The sheer speed of it must be kept in mind. All the crucial things that happened
inside the factory that awful afternoon- the heroics, the tragedy, the strokes of fortune
both saving and deadly- transpired in a handful of minutes and in the presence of a
hideously voracious fire (Von Drehle 2003, 134).
The fire vengefully engulfed the 8th and 9th floors, and inevitably proceeded to its
final upward destination, the 10th floor. Responding firefighters fought their way up
the stairways, aided by hoses fed from the street hydrants. They took a brave stand
on the 8th floor but couldnt advance beyond that for fear of being cut off themselves
by the blaze.
8
Situated in their offices on the 9th floor, Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, along with
several of their family members, faced death that afternoon. Along with numerous
employees from the engulfed floors below, they dashed through the smoke and flames
on the 10th floor and onto the roof. They and many others would be heroically saved
by ladders extending from the ledges and roofs of adjacent buildings.
Below them, trapped workers faced another alternative: jumping. Making the
decision to jump 8, 9, or 10 stories was not a rational one if the expectation was to
survive. The inadequate life nets on the street below couldnt possibly save jumpers
from that height and the tallest ladders were at least three stories too short to be of
any help. But there wasnt much else to do and the life nets only ironically
encouraged workers to jump to their deaths. At least 80 workers chose to jump,
perhaps ultimately believing that at least their bodies would be identifiable. Burning
bodies were coming down like flaming rockets (Von Drehle 2003, 159), tumbling
through the windows in horrible heaps (Von Drehle 2003, 127). The sound of
thudding bodies bursting on the sidewalk and ripping through life nets as if they were
paper would forever haunt the helpless onlookers.
The futile race down the inadequately narrow fire escape ended over a skylight.
Worse yet, there was no way to get from the bottom of the fire escape to the safety of
the street below. The fire escapes simply could not handle an emergency involving
hundreds of people on multiple floors. A tragic irony was in store for some workers
who managed to escape to the 6th floor which housed a different business: the doors
leading to the stairwells were locked. Those who jammed the fire escape saw its
flimsy structure inevitably buckle and detach, gruesomely killing many. It would be
9
asserted that the Asch Building fire escape was badly conceived, badly designed, and
badly installed (Von Drehle 2003, 145). The architect had promised to redesign the
pathetic dead end but never did, and city officials apparently failed to conduct a
reinspection.
In 30 minutes, the Triangle Fire became the worst workplace disaster in NYC and
the nation up to that time and until the infamy of 9/11/01. Though it was estimated
that as many as 300 workers survived, the death toll amounted to 123 young women
and 23 young men. The survivors agreed that tiny strokes of fortune decided,
repeatedly and remorsefully, who would live and who would die (Von Drehle 2003,
153). It would be further ascertained that:
People survived thanks to a short head start, or a seat assignment near an exit, or by
following the right mad rush in one direction or another- or by ignoring the wrong
rush. They survived by acting a bit more quickly, or boldly, or brutally. But the truth
is that most people working on the ninth floor [especially] that day did not survive at
all (Von Drehle 2003, 161).
Certainly such a tragedy had to have consequences, but was it right or possible to
hold anyone personally accountable? Though the question of who was to blame
blurred as each day passed, the mood of the public and especially Progressive
reformers was initially one of guilt but soon hardened into resolve to do something.
Aftermath
The aftermath of the Fire can be viewed through two perspectives: the long-term
and the short-term. In the long-term, the Fire became the vehicle to reform the
10
political and labor environment of New York and subsequently the nation. Using the
Progressive Movement as a platform to this end, several present and future politicians
rode a liberal reform course that would sustain very successful careers. Among those
individuals were Frances Perkins, Alfred Smith, Robert Wagner, and Franklin
Roosevelt, all of them New Yorkers whose dates with destiny had the Fire as a
common denominator.
In the short-term, an NYC Commission was officially created to investigate the
Fire with unprecedented political power. The political bosses of Tammany Hall did
not object because they understood that the future of their power base would depend
upon continued immigrant support, and immigrants not only constituted the vast
majority of the Fires victims but also of NYCs workforce. They did not, however,
foresee that the political perspective was changing and would soon compromise their
formerly powerful influence.
The Commission discovered that the innovations of firewalls, fire doors, fire
stairs, and automatic sprinklers were available to owners such as Blanck and Harris,
but in their defense few of these features were to be found anywhere in NYC. Within
two years, over 25 new laws completely recast the labor environment through fire
safety and labor protection for women and children. But it was readily apparent that
the Triangles lack of fire safety was a political but mostly an insurance issue. Instead
of providing costly safety measures, Blanck and Harris had opted instead to buy
larger insurance policies, despite extremely high rates. Apparently, they were
considered notoriously bad risks with a history of seven previous claims. Yet they
had no difficulty purchasing insurance. In point of fact, they collected a huge
11
insurance settlement from the Fire, amounting to about $40,000 per victim. Civil
lawsuits against the two would prove to be futile: nothing was ever personally
collected from them.
But even as the gruesome task of identifying the Triangles victims began, district
attorney Charles Whitman became intent on discovering who was responsible for the
Fire. His motives were not entirely humanitarian, as he eyed the Fire as an
opportunity for political advancement. Nevertheless, the investigation prompted
questions. Arson by the owners was immediately ruled out: Blanck and Harris, as
well as several of their family members, were in the building during the blaze and
narrowly escaped death themselves. Was the fire department lax? No, stated Chief
Edward Coker who asserted that these buildings were too tall and too many people
worked in them, with scant provision for their safety (Von Drehle 2003, 222-223).
Was the city building department or even the architect to blame? It would be difficult
to make a case against either.
Instead, Whitman became intent on indicting the owners for manslaughter due to
willful negligence and assigned Charles Bostwick and J.R. Rubin to prosecute. The
basis of their case was the allegation that the Triangles doors were purposely locked
during working hours and accounted for the tragedys high death toll. Defending the
owners was Max Steuer, reputed to be one of the greatest trial lawyers of his time.
Nine months after the Fire, the widely publicized trial began.
Though the trial featured 155 witnesses, the focus continued to be on the locked
door controversy. Harris and Blanck vehemently denied that the doors of the Triangle
were ever locked during working hours. This was countered by the testimony of a
12
fire prevention expert who stated that two years earlier, he had noted that major doors
were usually kept locked (Von Drehle 2003, 186) to restrict unauthorized
movements. Fire Marshal Edward Beers testified that he believed all the doors were
unlocked and the deaths were due to an overwhelming wave of heat preceding the
flames (Von Drehle 2003, 265). Though this testimony may have initially
exonerated the owners, the prosecution noted that the facts did not support it.
The main thrust by the defense was that this large and busy factory required
constant movement among the floors to effectively function. Thus, the doors couldnt
have been locked (but as the prosecution countered, then why did the doors have
keys?). But even if they had been locked, the stairways were impassable and locked
doors would be irrelevant: fire sealed the victims fates and indeed caused their own
deaths through panic. Were the owners scapegoats to be sacrificed due to the bad
judgment of panicked workers?
Despite the impressive presentations of both sides, two key events proved to be
the decisive factors. First, the defense suspected and readily proved that prosecution
witnesses had been coached with carefully scripted testimonies that they had
difficulty repeating when cross-examined. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the
overly cautious judge, who had previously had serious problems with a similar case,
instructed the jury that it must have proof that if the doors had been open, more
victims would have survived. With such a narrow focus, the jury had little choice but
to acquit and did so in less than two hours of deliberation.
The question of whether justice was served may be debatable, but two years after
the trial, Max Blanck was again arrested and charged with locking factory doors
13
during working hours on the defense that his employees would rob him blind if he
didnt lock them (Von Drehle 2003, 269). Was this a foolish move, especially with
the fresh memory of the Fire? Fined a mere $20 this time, it certainly prompted the
question of whether Blanck and Harris knowingly and purposely locked the Triangle
doors, contributing to the horrible deaths of 146 young women and men. The
circumstantial evidence seems to indicate they did.
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire proved to be a pivotal moment. Though the
facts of the Fire were too soon relegated to legend, a monumental legacy did result in
addition to protective fire laws: the feminist element led to a repositioning of women
in American society, arguably hastened the adoption of the franchise for women, and
national politics poised for shift to a more liberal position.
The Trial
Using the background information in the previous sections (excluding the actual
verdict and the key events leading to it), students are now prepared to begin the trial
simulation. It may be best to start with an explanation of the charge, which is
manslaughter due to willful negligence. The next step is the assignment of roles. At
the teachers discretion, this can be determined by direct assignment, blind draw, or
volunteer, with attention to student oratory skills. The number of roles should be able
to accommodate a class of most any reasonable size. Time must then be devoted to
establishing accepted guidelines for each part. The judge must understand his/her
power in ruling on objections, setting time limits for attorney and witness statements,
and instructing the jury. Attorneys must be organized in their arguments and how to
14
sequence witnesses to make their best case. Witnesses must know how much detail
they can make up or stick to the provided information. The jury needs to know what
it can and cannot consider for deliberating a verdict. A well-organized approach to
these considerations will enhance the activity and reduce wasted time.
Trial procedures must then be established. There is probably no one accepted
format but various law-related education projects could provide examples of a
developed set. The following is a suggested generic set to consider:
1. As the judge enters, the Bailiff announces, All rise. The Court of New
York is now in session, the Honorable Thomas Crain presiding. Everyone
remains standing until the judge is seated.
2. The judge asks, Bailiff, what is todays case? The Bailiff responds,
Your Honor, todays case is New York versus Max Blanck and Issac
Harris, owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, on the charge of
manslaughter due to willful negligence.
3. The judge instructs the Bailiff to read the facts of the case to the jury. The
Bailiff then reads The Fire section to the court.
4. The judge states, The prosecution will now give its opening statement.
The prosecutor then states what he/she intends to prove with a 2-minute
time limit.
5. The judge states, The defense will now give its opening statement. The
defense attorney then states what he/she intends to prove with a 2-minute
time limit.
15
6. The judge instructs the prosecution to call its first witness, to be sworn in
(along with all subsequent witnesses) by the Bailiff. The defense may
object to any question considered unfair, to which the judge must decide to
sustain it or overrule it. After finishing with the witness, the prosecutor
must announce, Your witness. The defense may then cross-examine the
witness with the same rules of objection available to the prosecution.
After finishing, the defense must announce, No further questions.
7. The judge dismisses the witness and instructs the prosecution to call its
next witness with the same procedures to be followed.
8. After its last witness has been questioned (or cross-examined), the
prosecution will state, The prosecution rests.
9. The judge instructs the defense to call its first witness with the same
procedures to be followed.
10. After its last witness has been questioned (or cross-examined), the defense
will state, The defense rests.
11. The judge then gives each attorney the opportunity to recall any witness
with the same procedures applying.
12. Closing arguments by each attorney are an option but should be limited to
2 minutes with no objections allowed.
13. The judge instructs the jury to retire and deliberate on a verdict which
must be either guilty or not guilty, but must be unanimous and based upon
only the presented evidence. It is recommended that this be an overnight
assignment.
16
14. The jury announces its verdict and explains why it arrived at the decision.
The judge will dismiss the defendants if innocent or pass sentence if
guilty.
These procedures can vary in structure but it is important to have them clearly
stated for organization. At the teachers discretion and control is taking into account
pacing, time spent on a given aspect, what to avoid, etc. Though the suggested time
allotment for the activity is approximately three class periods, this is variable and
dependent upon the overall organization. The classroom should also be rearranged to
resemble a conventional courtroom, which will add an element of realism to the
proceedings. The jury, whose size will vary dependent upon the size of the class,
must be instructed to consider only the evidence presented, should take notes on each
testimony for reference (it could be mentioned that only men could be jurors at that
time and could not take notes) and must render a unanimous verdict.
Each of the designate roles represents an actual person from the event with the
exception of John Jones and Carl Brown, who were created to introduce two aspects
of the case that might be beneficial. The size and makeup of the class will determine
how many of the witnesses will be used with either gender able to play a given role.
Note that each witness has a testimony statement based upon information and/or
direct quotes from the book.
The Main Players
Judge Thomas Crain: Controls the proceedings, weighs objections, dismisses
witnesses, passes sentence.
17
Bailiff: Calls the court to order, states the charge along with reading The Fire segment
to the court, and swears in witnesses.
Prosecuting Attorney Charles Bostwick: Key to his case: locked doors.
Defense Attorney Max Steuer: Key to his case: by the nature of the factorys function,
the doors had to be open. But even if they were locked, the stairways were
impassable and the workers caused their own deaths through panic, which had
nothing to do with the owners.
The Jury: Number to be determined at the discretion of the teacher, should take notes,
cannot ask questions of the witnesses, must render a unanimous verdict based only
upon the presented evidence, and justify why that verdict was reached.
Witnesses for the Defense
Fire Marshal Edward Beers: The problem was not panic or inadequate escape routes.
It was something else[the] rush of heat that preceded the flames themselves. It
killed victims where they stood before they could make it through the doors. They
were asphyxiated by heat and toxic gases so intense that they dropped where they
stood as flowers might wither under the same influence. I do not take seriously
reports that the doors were locked The fact that workers from the eighth and ninth
floors escaped by way of the roof is evidence enough that the doors were not locked.
Architect John Jones: The Asch Building is rightfully advertised as fire-proof
according to both the Building and Fire Departments which approved every detail of
the construction. Every feature was in compliance with existing codes.
Fire Inspector Henry Moskowitz: Inspectors had visited more than 1200 New York
factories [in the four months preceding the Fire] and virtually all those factories
18
presented serious fire danger. The Triangle had been inspected and was among the
SAFER shops on the list, although the findings also strongly indicated a need for
general improvements.
Embroidery Supplier Max Hirsch: A factory as large and busy as the Triangle could
not possibly function efficiently among floors without constant up and down
movement. The doors couldnt be left locked. Before I quit to take another job, I
probably used the 9th floor doors fifty, maybe seventy-five times.
Cutter Samuel Rubin: Before I quit to take another job, I routinely went through the
9th floor doors three or four times a week.
Factory Worker/Survivor May Levantini: I heard the alarm, saw the first signs of fire,
and ran to the door. When I got there, I found the key dangling from a strip of fabric.
I turned the key and opened the door. Smoke and flames were coming up the
stairway, so I turned back, slammed the door, and escaped by sliding down a cable in
the elevator shaft.
Factory Worker/Survivor Ida Mittleman: I followed May Levantini through the door
and stood beside her as the thick smoke boiled up, so I turned back. But due to the
confusion, I didnt remember it happening until May reminded me later.
Witnesses for the Prosecution
Fire Chief Edward Croker: I have long expected just such a fire as this. Buildings
such as the Triangle are too tall and too many people work in them with scant
provision for their safety. The city building department failed to insist on adequate
safety measures.
19
Fire Prevention Expert Peter McKeon: I inspected the Triangle two years ago when
the owners applied for more insurance coverage. I noticed that the doors on one side
of the building were usually kept locked to restrict unauthorized comings and
goings by the workers. Several workers mentioned how Mr. Blanck would test the
locks and check the doors every time he passed. My main worry was the sheer
number of people working so far above ground. I recommended an expert to organize
fire drills but nothing came of it.
Manager of the Royal Insurance Company Carl Brown: The Triangle owners had lots
of insurance, which wasnt unusual. But they were rotten risks or repeaters
because they filed and collected on seven claims in the past nine years. They were
willing to pay very high premiums so they had no difficulty getting all the insurance
they wanted. But this fire couldnt have been arson.
Factory Manager/Survivor Samuel Bernstein: I shouted to one of the workers to get
me the hose as quick as you can! I took the hose while another worker turned the
water valve but nothing happened. It was wide open but it didnt work. No
pressure, no water. I even struggled with the hose nozzle. I turned it one way and
then the other and it dont work.
Fireman Jacob Woll: We raised the ladder toward the trapped workers as high as it
could go, but it was some thirty feet short. The tallest ladder in New York was not
tall enough to reach them.
Fireman Felix Reinhardt: I was part of a 3-man team attacking the blaze from one
side of the building. The heat was so intense we had to fight our way with quite
some difficulty up from the 8th floor to the 9th floor. When we reached the 9th floor
20
landing, we saw that most of the stairway door was burned away- but what was left
made it clear that the door had been firmly shut.
Factory Worker/Survivor Max Hochfield: I was lucky enough that day to have been
reassigned to a machine on the 9th floor near the exit door. I reached the 8th floor
before I even realized there was a fire. My sister Esther never escaped the 9th floor.
That was the first fire I ever saw in America and we were totally unprepared. We
were foreigners and werent trained. A fire drill would have given us what we
needed.
Factory Worker/Survivor Ethel Monick: I tried the door [on the 9th floor] and I could
not open it, so I thought I was not strong enough. I called for help and they all
rushed over, and they tried to open it and it was locked. And they hollered out, The
door is locked and we cant open it!
Factory Worker/Survivor Yeta Lubitz: I was standing by the door when a young man
rushed up to try it and I heard him cry, Oh, the door is locked! The door is locked!
Factory Worker/Survivor Kate Alterman: I was operating a sewing machine on the 9th
floor near the center of the third of eight rows that stretched across the room. Right
after the alarm there was much panic. I went to the toilet room I wanted to go
to [the door on the other side] but the whole door was in flames. So I went and hid
myself in the toilet room And then I ran to [the other side where there was an]
elevator, but there was a big crowd and I couldnt pass through there. There was a
whole crowd around the door And I saw the managers brother trying to open the
door [He] tried the door and he couldnt open it I tried and I couldnt open
it [My friend Margaret was standing next to me and] I turned my head on the side,
21
and I noticed the trail of her dress and the ends of her hair begin to burn. Then I
ran in a small dressing room and went out from there. Stood in the center of the
room I noticed the managers brother throwing around like a wildcat at the
window, and pull himself back I saw the flames cover him. Bodies were sinking
under the flames as others went out the window. I just turned my coat covered
my head and tried to run through the flames The whole door was a red curtain of
fire [but] I ran through the door, right through the flames onto the roof My
pocketbook began to burn already, but I pressed it to my heart to extinguish the fire.
Debriefing
Executed under the teachers guidance, the trial simulation is more than just a fun
activity. Rather, it can promote a better understanding of the legal trial system and
how technicalities can affect the system. What is crucial is the debriefing process.
The follow-up discussion could and should be the most poignant aspect of the lesson.
Such a discussion also carries with it unforeseen and unpredictable opportunities for
teachable moments for which the teacher must be prepared. While similar modern
comparisons can be made to the actual outcome of the trial, the post-simulation
discussion can be initially guided by the following questions:
How does a tragedy of this proportion affect public empathy and support for
legal reforms?
22
Did the actual acquittal of the owners have any lasting effects on the legal
system? NOTE: Students may not have the necessary information to answer
this question.
23
Suggested Sources for Further Study
The following selected sources are recommended for a more comprehensive interest
in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire but are certainly not meant to represent an
inclusive list. Their usefulness will also be dependent upon the grade level of the
student.
Boyer, Richard (1932). Max Steuer: Magician of the law. New York: Greenberg.
Briggs, Vernon (2001). Immigration and American unionism. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Dye, Nancy (1981). As equals and sisters: Feminism, the labor movement and
womens trade union league of New York. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Faith, Nicholas (2000). Blaze: The forensics of fire. New York: St. Martins Press.
Green, James (1998). The world of the worker: Labor in twentieth-century America.
Urbana: University of Illinois.
Jensen, Frances (1996). The Triangle fire and the limits of Progressivism. University
of Massachusetts. Unpublished dissertation.
Levine, Louis (1969). The womens garment workers. New York: Arno & The New
York Times.
Llewellyn, Chris (1987). Fragments from the fire: The Triangle Shirtwaist Company
fire of March 25, 1911: Poems. New York: Viking.
ONan, Stewart (2001). The circus fire: A true story of an American tragedy. New
York: Anchor Books.
Stein, Leon (2001). The Triangle fire. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
24
There are many websites that can be accessed for information on the Triangle Fire.
Among the best of them is: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/
25
References
Chapman, K., and J. Cousins. 1974. Simulation games in social studies: A report. The
Clearinghouse 64: 95-98.
Karraker, M. 1993. Mock trials and critical thinking. College Teaching 41(4): 134-37.
Shepelak, N. 1996. Employing a mock trial in a criminology course: An applied learning
experience. Teaching Sociology 24(4): 395-400.
Smith, D. 1996. Developing a more interactive classroom: A continuing odyssey.
Teaching Sociology 24(1): 64-75.
Von Drehle, D. 2003. Triangle: The fire that changed America. New York: Grove Press.
26