Historiography by Liam, 2016 - 2017
The first author in this discussion is Leon Fink, author of Workingmen's Democracy: The Knights of Labor and American Politics. Fink argues that the American labor movement seen in the late nineteenth century was a radical movement centered around the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, noted as the first widespread representative of American laborers. Fink claims that this organization was not simply a typical group seeking basic social or economic reform, but rather sought to revolutionize the United States economic system through Marxist-like abolition of the wage system. The author cited the Knight’s manifesto that stated: “We declare, an inevitable and irresistible conflict between the wage-system of labor and the republican system of government.” Fear of revolution, according to Fink, was rampant, as riots, protests, boycotts, and strikes were frequent. The Chicago Times even called for the use of hand grenades to put down strikers who could spur revolution. The Knights saw the industrial economy of the Gilded Age as a system in which laborers were only another price jeopardizing the profits of tycoons, and that wages had been whittled into nothingness to form a society of wage-slavery. This is where Fink believes the line is drawn, the Knights in his interpretation saw the solution in a fair share of business profits to laborers that is easily seen as comparable to socialist ideals.
Arguing that this labor movement was not radical, is Carl N. Degler, author of Out of the Past: The Forces That Shaped Modern America. Degler argued that this movement was a relatively conservative response to the effects the postwar industrial economy has on the working man. He argues that this was in no way an assault on capitalism, as suggested by Fink, but rather a natural reaction to counter the challenges of a labor force facing the challenges of big business. He references the existence of labor unions even prior to 1865 (granted they were weak and relatively ineffective in organizing effectively against such massive industries) as an example of the gradual inclusion of labor representation in early industry. By the late nineteenth century, major businesses were near unchecked, they could hire and fire employees as they pleased and manipulate wages to best serve their bottom line. This was all the case with almost no protection to workers, making the rise of groups such as the Knights of Labor a predictable outcome. The conservative, non radical nature of these early unions can be seen in their success and failure. No major socialist-like reforms were successful, because ultimately, most Americans were still strong believers in capitalism, still waiting to make it big and fall into untold fortune. Although the Knights of Labor had a strong presence initially, they were unwilling to compromise to a sensible reform that protected workers while also continuing to promote the ideals of the capitalistic American Dream. Groups like the American Federation of Labor, however, were able to survive into the twentieth century, as they were more moderate in nature. I would argue that although Fink provides evidence of radical viewpoints held by certain individuals and groups during the Gilded Age’s labor movement, the overall movement is clearly a non radical attempt at reforming an economic and social system that was too lenient on industries and not accommodating to workers. I could certainly argue that this movement was tinged with radicalism, with such a large group as the Knights of Labor exhibiting signs of a call for a major revolution, but I feel as though this group was more so a populist vessel for worker to raise their concerns to a government that had largely ignored them, that did not necessarily desire such extreme changes. I would also argue that it is challenging to find a major movement not infected with pockets of radical behavior, and as proven by Degler, only the groups that compromised and showed a moderate approach were gifted with longevity and true success.
14 Comments
Rose
1/18/2017 10:53:42 am
I have to agree that while the labor movement itself was not a radical movement, there were radical organizations within the movement. I also agree that The Knights of Labor died out because they were too radical and unwilling to compromise and most Americans still supported capitalism as opposed to the socialism that the Knights of Labor argued for. However, I do not think that the labor movement was as gradual as Degler suggests, using the existence of previous labor unions as evidence. The previous labor unions were weak, small, and ineffectual, and therefore were insufficient to protect workers, making them irrelevant.
Reply
Anna Sexauer
1/18/2017 03:10:59 pm
I agree with Liam and Carl N. Degler because I do not think the labor unions were radical. Because the working conditions were so poor, a natural response was to form groups to try to combat this. Labor unions such as the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of labor strove to get legislators to pass laws that would protect laborers and increase wages. Although some of the protests did have some radical characteristics, the majority were peaceful. It is understandable that some protests became out of control to some point because legislators did not listen to reform ideas and the protestors were fired for no reason other than being members of these labor unions. However, the Knights of Labor often went too far. Therefore, I agree that the reason the Knights of Labor ultimately dismembered was because they were unable to compromise.
Reply
Daniel Rohde
1/19/2017 03:54:51 pm
I agree with Charles N. Degler I do not think the the American Labor Movement was radical because like Degler points out that there have been labor movements earlier than 1865 and they have been far worse than this Labor Union. But, also there were times where this movement was more radical than not like the Great Strike of 1877. Also the Knights of Labor fought in the riot of 1883 in Chicago where the eight hour day was fought for and in this riot there was a lot of violence that resembled a more radical movement. I think that since this movement was larger that it enabled this movement to become more violent as time went on and more people joined the movement. This movement had a very widespread effect on American unlike previous movements.
Reply
Samantha
1/19/2017 07:09:19 pm
I agree with Carl N. Degler, who believes that the American Labor Movement was not a radical one. I consider the American Labor Movement not a radical movement because the first major group of American laborers who fought for social and economic reform, The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, were, naturally upset because of the way they were being treated by their employers. Their anger and actions were completely understandable. The workers were being treated unfairly, for example, the companies they worked for could fire them at anytime for no reason and pay them as little as they desired. It should not have been a surprise when the laborers started to rebel and cause issues for the businesses for whom they worked. These were not the actions of crazy radicals, but of hard working people who were simply tired of being mis-treated, and felt they had no other course of actions.The way they were being treated does not compare to the way they acted out.
Reply
kevin willis
1/19/2017 09:04:27 pm
I agree with Carl N Edgar in that the labor unions were not radical. It is only natural for labor unions to form in response to the overwhelmingly harsh working condition that the workers faced. The changes that the unions brought about were a good step in the right direction, an example being the publics opinion being changed toward favoring the unions rather than thinking them a collection of lazy complainers, as they did previously. But overall they were unsuccessful in accomplishing their goals in their lifetimes. The Knights of Labor may have had the best chance at good change, but they were eventually associated the radical anarchists which took away the publics good opinion of them, which was their eventual downfall. That is an example of why the labor unions specifically avoided radical means to accomplish their goals.
Reply
Robby Parker
1/19/2017 09:04:59 pm
The American Labor movement wasn't radical based on the fact that the unions formed fought for better wages and shorter workdays. The overall goal of the American Labor movement was to reform a system that was benefitting large industries and not the people working for these companies. These industries benefitting off of the government having a laissez faire approach towards U.S. businesses. This led to many unsuccessful socialist-like reforms, which Carl N. Degler explained was caused by capitalism taking over America. This failure within the movement came from groups like the Knights of Labor, which was seen as to radical and was unable to compromise with the capitalist majority. The Labor movement was mostly unable to become too radical due to workers losing their jobs if they participated in striking. In conclusion, the American Labor Movement wasn't radical because their primary goal was to increase the rights and negotiating powers of mistreated workers, and to try and limit the businesses ability to do whatever they pleased.
Reply
Palmer Smith
1/19/2017 09:16:28 pm
I have to agree with Liam and Carl N. Degler because yes big businesses were taken aback to see the formation of labor unions and radical uprisings of mad employees but they should of seen it coming when they paid the workers such low incomes in awful work environments. The actions of these employees were justified and more “conservative” than they could have been. Groups like the Knights of Labor and the American Foundation worked their hardest to get legislation to acknowledge the insufficiencies in the treatment of workers in the big businesses. Although some were violent and seemed a tad radical, they mostly held peaceful riots that didn’t cause any harm. The labor unions were good attempts of trying to make the lives of workers better but they ultimately fell apart because they didn’t raise enough awareness or because legislation just wasn’t listening.
Reply
Jazmine Evans
1/19/2017 09:45:53 pm
I agree with the opinions of Charles N. Degler and Liam, that the American Labor Movement was not that of radicals hoping for extreme change, but more aligned with everyday workers that hoped for more protection from the lashes of big businesses. Any movement that is for the most part calm can be tinged with radicalism and therefore characterized only by these memorable parts. These protestors had worked in filthy, unsafe conditions for minuscule wages for decades, but with the increase of city populations and factory workers, there were more workers and more corners being cut to supply the huge demand for goods.
Reply
Jackson Rose
1/19/2017 09:51:57 pm
While the ideas of the American labor movement itself were somewhat radical, the ideas never resulted in real radical changes. The wage-system was not ideal for laborers at all because it fostered a dependence on the factory and their salaries. Both authors’ sides of the argument must be included here because while some laborers wanted radical changes and rioted for them, radical, sweeping changes were not made. Workers were treated poorly, and not much was done to ensure their health; their wages were also very low. These were the two main points, which weren’t really radical, of the American labor movement, and change would eventually come in these areas.
Reply
Emma Booker
1/19/2017 09:53:38 pm
Overall, I agree with Carl N. Degler that the entirety of the American Labor Movement was not radical, and more so conservative in nature. As you stated in your opinion, I also agree that within any movement, there will be more radical sects that dedicate their lives and take extreme measures to gain what they believe is deserved. However, as presented by Degler, with general opinion of Social Darwinism being on the minds of the American people at the time, it would have been difficult to promote an uprising against the American Dream of rising from poverty to wealth. It seems only natural that when given circumstances at a much poorer level than what was originally presented, a person would want to gain back the original offer of opportunity that America had held towards immigrants.
Reply
Courtney Floyd
1/20/2017 12:17:33 am
Overall I agree more with the opinions of Carl N. Degler and Liam that the American Labor Movement was not so much as a radical movement, but had small radical aspects to it. The formations of labor unions, especially during this time of harsh conditions and poor wages, is a logical response to the mistreatments in the labor force. It was the creation of groups that had motives other than to seek a basic social and economic reform that caused the small radical parts of the movement. These groups like the Knights of Labor more than likely caused failure for the movement because their ideas were too radical for the goals most were trying to achieve.
Reply
Madison Wessells
1/24/2017 10:00:09 pm
I agree with the opinions of Liam and Carl N. Delger, that the formations of the labor movement was not radical. When I read the word “radical,” I think of something that is very unusual and, in some cases, unreasonable. If laborers are forced to work in poor conditions for long hours and are paid little, it is not at all unusual/unreasonable for them to want change. Because there is strength in numbers, organized groups may help them decide goals, make their demands known, and to help them secure better working conditions in the long run. Child labor, illness, and retirement were also issues faced by laborers during the Gilded Age. Business owners should have seen the movement coming because workers put their lives on the line every day to provide for themselves and their families but had little to show for it, and their future was questionable. Groups such as the Knight of Labor and the American Federation of Labor sought changes in the government that regulated working conditions and wages. Even though I do not consider the movement, itself to be radical, some of the protests and events that resulted from the formation of these groups might be considered radical.
Reply
Olivia Kellam
2/1/2017 05:29:48 pm
Overall, I agree with Carl N. Degler with the idea that the American Labor Movement was not a radical movement. I believe that the people were not looking for a drastic change, but were looking for better working conditions. They were forced to work dangerous jobs for low wages and insane hours. It is understandable that the workers wanted to change things, but I do not think that they way they went about it was radical at all. However, the Knights of Labor would have probably not been as effective during this time because they were on the radical side of thongs. They promoted making each person their own employer, and at this time, that was very uncommon. Their goals, such abolishing child-labor, monopolies, and trusts, were too extreme for the late 1800s.
Reply
Katoe
2/6/2017 07:38:11 pm
I agree with Liam and Carl N. Degler that the American Labor Movement was not radical but actually on the side of conservative considering the condition and the effects the postwar industrial economy had on those who were working. Better working conditions, higher pay, and shorter workdays should not have been considered radical but should have been seen coming. Organizations such as the Knights of Labor and the American Foundation tried their best to get legislation to acknowledge the horrendous treatment of workers by big businesses. Peaceful riots were held although some got violet but again, what were the businesses expecting. The overall idea of trying to get decent hours, pay, and conditions weren't radical but perhaps some aspects of how labor unions planned to seek such changes seemed too radical for the time and ended in a failure to get what they wanted and deserved.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWelcome to Liam's Blog. Liam is participating in an independent study of history this year part of which requires him to interpret historical arguments. Archives
April 2017
Categories |