In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

6 Combat in the Streets The Railroad Strike of 1877 and Its Consequences In the summer of 1877, the United States experienced its first national strike, an unorganized, spontaneous rebellion of working people in cities from Baltimore and Pittsburgh to St. Louis and Chicago. The Great Strike produced a fundamental change in public awareness. Beforehand, according to George Schilling, a Socialist and labor leader, “the labor question was of little or no importance to the average citizen. The large mass of our people contented themselves with the belief that in this great and free Republic there was no room for real complaint. The idea that all Americans were on an equal footing seemed to be recognized as an incontrovertible fact in the halls of legislation, in the press, and the pulpit.” The 1877 strike “was the calcium light that illumined the skies of our social and industrial life, and revealed the pinched faces of the workers and the opulence, arrogance, and unscrupulousness of the rich.” The New York Times drew a similar conclusion: “The workmen have . . . attracted popular attention to their grievances, real or alleged, to an extent that will render future indifference impossible.” After the strike, no one could deny that there was a “labor question” or a working class that did not feel on an “equal footing” with the rest of society. In the new climate of opinion, the Socialists prospered, according to Schilling, because they had answers to the new labor question, whereas others had denied its existence.1 On the eve of the strike, the political situation in Chicago contrasted with many eastern cities where the German component of the working class was smaller and machine politicians were able to offer inducements to workers to “immunize” them from Socialist appeals. In contrast, Chicago’s city hall was in the hands of a coalition of Republicans and municipal reformers who a year earlier had decisively defeated the People’s Party. The two central organizers of the People’s Party, Anton Hesing and Dan O’Hara, were at the end of their careers. In disarray, the city’s machine politicians could not provide bold leadership. Meanwhile, the Republicans in city hall feared that any union organizing or political initiative by labor would stymie needed political reforms and aid the Socialists. This antilabor stance contrasted with the reaction of Jentz_Schneirov_Chicago.indd 194 2/16/12 10:51 AM the Republican administration during the eight-hour strike in 1867, when the mayor even voiced support for the goal of the strike and was reluctant to use the police against it. The inability of mainstream Chicago politicians to offer viable appeals to workers during the long depression of the 1870s created an opening for the Socialists to speak for working people.2 The weakness of labor unions added to the opportunity. Even at the height of the labor upsurge between 1864 and 1872, only two Chicago unions—the typographers and stonecutters—were powerful enough to control wages and working conditions in their trade. The membership and bargaining strength of other unions fluctuated wildly according to seasonal and business cycles. With the coming of the 1870s depression and consequent wage reductions, organized labor activity practically halted. At the same time, popular cultural activities thrived in working-class districts. Among German-speaking central Europeans—Germans, Swiss, and Austrians plus some Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians—the level of organization and morale remained particularly high. A thriving community-based movement culture emerged among Chicago Socialists that paralleled that of the Socialists in imperial Germany. It included a party press, periodic parades, picnics, meetings, militia drills, and yearly celebrations of the Paris Commune. The Socialist Lehr- und Wehr Verein was the main militia group among the Germans, and similar military companies existed among the Irish, Bohemians, and native-born. Privately funded, such militia groups had been common in the United States since the Revolution, but they took on new meanings amid the class conflict of the 1870s. During and after the strike, the emergence of a large segment of politically mobilized workers with armed organizations presented a glaring exception to the state’s claim to a monopoly on armed coercion. The fact that these militias were in the hands of people openly challenging the legitimacy of the new industrial capitalist order created the prospect of dual authority within one state, what one Socialist called “armed political competition.” This looming crisis was only resolved when a voter realignment and a new political regime emerged beginning in 1879...

Share