Chapter Two
Anarchism and the Eight-Hour Movement

The end of the 1870s depression deepened the ethnic split in the labor movement. The Anglo-Americans returned to a strategy of strikes in the elite trades to induce employers to raise wages and continued their political lobbying and electoral work. The city's foreign-born workers were less able to take advantage of returning prosperity because they were excluded from most of the high-status trade unions; and even peaceful strikes by the foreign born were often met with police repression. Without significant wage increases, workers saw their real incomes fall as prices rose in the recovery. Another means of responding to this plight, such as electing sympathetic candidates to office, was also unavailable to the foreign born; fraud that denied them fair representation, especially to the Germans, was common.

Many city workers felt that the only solution was revolution. In 1880, the SLP's German, Bohemian, and Norwegian members held meetings at which it was resolved to merge with the armed resistance groups. They repudiated the continuing use of an electoral strategy by the Anglo-Americans in the nearly dead SLP and in the Trades and Labor Assembly. They issued a call asking all revolutionaries in the country to "get ready to offer an armed resistance to the invasions by the capitalist class and capitalist legislatures" (Vorbote December 4, 1880; cited in Commons et. al. 1918, 2: 290), The English-speaking faction responded by condemning the proposed use of violence and suggesting again that more mod-

erate political action was the worker's only reliable weapon (Commons et al. 1918, 2: 291).

In October 1881, an anarchist movement was organized in the city based on a model provided by the International Working People's Association—the Black International —which had convened in London in July of that year. Anarchism was in conflict with Marxist-inspired state socialism. The anarchist ideology rejected both state authority and the state's claim to a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical coercion. Anarchists such as Proudhon argued that the power of capital and the power of the state were synonymous; thus, the proletariat could not emancipate itself through the use of state power. Others such as Bakunin proposed spontaneous worker uprisings to abolish the state and replace it with a system of self-regulated, federally linked, autonomous communes that would be like the Paris Commune of 1871 (Bottomore 1983, 18).

Despite the differences in ideology, the anarchist movement in Chicago mobilized many former socialist activists from the German trade union wing of the SLP. They continued to call for the abolition of private property because they saw it as a major cause of social inequality; they believed that equality was a necessary condition for the successful realization of an anarchist society. They had changed only in that they no longer believed they could reach their goals by working within the existing political system. That view came not from the uncritical borrowing of Black International ideology but from mainly German and Bohemian workers' frustration with the disruption of peaceful meetings in the July 1877 strike and with electoral fraud in the late 1870s. Anarchism, with its goal of abolishing the existing state, offered the obvious solution to the problem of German and Bohemian workers' exclusion from political influence in Chicago.

Albert Parsons, the German upholsterer August Spies, and representatives of the Lehr und Wehr Verein, the Jaeger Verein, and other workers' armed defense groups were among the thirteen delegates at the first U.S. anarchist convention held at a Chicago North Side Turner hall (David 1958, 73). Members in any part of the city could organize an autonomous group with not fewer than ten members; unions could also be granted membership. The groups were to be united only by a nearly powerless central com-

mittee whose decisions were to have binding force only if not objected to by any given group at its next meeting. The central committee was also forbidden to spend more than $20 without authorization from all the clubs. Chicago was instructed to establish a national information bureau for the movement, but it did not do so until April 1883 (Commons et al. 1918, 2: 293). Two Chicago papers, the Vorbote and the Nye Tid , were recognized as party organs.

Chicago did not have a strong anarchist movement until at least 1882, when the most prominent national leader of the anarchists, Johann Most, visited the city and gave a series of fiery speeches. The well-attended gatherings drew German support away from what was left of the SLP, and Most's extreme radicalism moved city anarchists to more revolutionary positions (David 1958, 87-88).

The national movement, now called the Social Revolutionary movement, was given real form at the October 1883 Pittsburgh convention, at which Chicago was represented by delegates from five political groups. Twenty-four of the twenty-six delegates at the convention were German, Parsons being one of only two English speakers. Johann Most was the dominant force, calling for "propaganda of the deed" (acts of violence against capitalists and state and church officials) and arguing eloquently for the execution of all reactionaries, for the confiscation of capital by the people, and against electoral work.

The Chicago anarchists fought Most in an effort to gain support for a more formal relationship between the anarchist political cells and the union movement; they did manage to get a resolution sponsored by August Spies passed. It stated that trade unions fighting for the abolition of the wage system would be the foundation of the future anarchist society. But when the convention wrote the theoretical basis of American anarchism—the Pittsburgh Manifesto—it was clearly inspired by the ideas of Johann Most (Commons et al. 1918, 2: 294-95):

We could show by scores of illustrations that all attempts in the past to reform this monstrous system by peaceable means, such as by the ballot, have been futile, and all such efforts in the future must necessarily be so .... The political institutions of our time are the agencies of the propertied class; their mission is the upholding of the privileges of their masters; any reform in our own behalf would curtail these privileges ....

That they will not resign these privileges voluntarily we know ... since we must then rely upon the kindness of our masters for whatever redress we have, and knowing that from them no good may be expected, there remains but one recourse—FORCE!

What we would achieve is therefore, plainly and simply:

First:—Destruction of the existing class rule, by all means, i.e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and international action.

Second:—Establishment of a free society based upon cooperative organization of production.

Third:—Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the productive organizations without commerce and profit-mongering.

Fourth:—Organization of education on a secular, scientific, and equal basis for both sexes.

Fifth:—Equal rights for all without distinction of sex or race.

Sixth:—Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting on a federalistic basis.

Recommendations for arming the working class were presented, and reaction was favorable. The Chicago Jaeger Verein urged that the proletariat be armed with the most recent scientific knowledge in the field of chemistry in order that it have the ability to assemble dynamite bombs.

Shortly after the congress, the SLP offered to affiliate with the Chicago Social Revolutionary clubs, but Spies prevented unification by suggesting that the SLP break up into autonomous groups prior to joining the anarchist group. The now largely Anglo SLP was soon dead. George Schilling withdrew as a candidate and then left the party altogether in 1882; the rest of the leadership left the SLP in 1883. From this point on, the Social Revolutionary clubs were the only major organizations for labor radicals in the city (Ashbaugh 1976, 52-53).

Yet in the early 1880s, the anarchists remained politically marginal, with a membership of a few hundred (Nelson 1981). Despite their commitment to union work, the Chicago anarchists had no official trade union representation on their central committee prior to 1884. In August 1883, a demonstration by the Social Revolutionaries had been attended by just three German trade unions: the printers, cabinetmakers, and house carpenters. Most of the Anglo-

dominated unions, including the printers, stonecutters, seamen, bricklayers and stonemasons, carpenters and joiners, and iron molders, belonged to the Trades and Labor Assembly.

The city's Anglo workers had little reason to join an anarchist movement; many of their unions had been waging successful strikes for higher wages in the inflationary early 1880s (Bogart and Thompson 1920, 452). Political action in their trades assembly was confined to lobbying for legislation favorable to workers (such as laws prohibiting contract, convict, and child labor; mandating factory inspections; and establishing a labor bureau).

But as the recovery began to lag in 1883, the advocates of revolution gained support and began to become more of a political threat to the reformers in the Trades and Labor Assembly. Partly because they worked in one of the first trades to be hurt by the downturn, cigar makers provided many early recruits for the anarchist movement. The resultant political split between reformers and revolutionaries in the city's cigar makers union anticipated the similar fragmentation of the labor movement as a whole.

Labor Politics in the Chicago Cigar Makers Union

When founded in 1864, the Chicago Cigar Makers Union no. 11 did not accept the revolutionary ideology that would characterize its pronouncements in the 1880s; rather, it exhibited the reformist politics characteristic of the Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 and the citywide labor coalitions that the Chicago Typographical Union helped found (Workingman's Advocate June 15 and August 25, 1866; August 3 and 17, 1867; April 11 and May 22, 1869).

But the cigar makers chose a more radical political path as the 1870s depression wore on. Despite the death of their union after the onset of the depression, cigar makers were one of the few skilled trades to be involved in the July 1877 strikes. Three hundred fifty cigar makers met to discuss the feasibility of striking for the eight-hour day and for a wage increase, perhaps the first indication of socialist influence in the trade because the eight-hour day was a WPI demand during these events. Their peaceful meeting was broken up by club-swinging police, an experience that may have radicalized a few of those present.

There were definitely some socialist cigar makers. One of the

most prominent, Frank Hirth—soon to be a SLP candidate for city council—proposed at the 1877 cigar makers international convention, "Whereas, trades unions are utterly incompetent to remove the pressure resting upon them, caused by the above mental and social infirmities, the delegates in convention hereby recommend to and urge upon all local unions to form themselves into labor bodies upon the basis and platform of the Workingman's Party of the United States" (Cigar Makers Official Journal 15th Session Proceedings, 1883). The convention tabled this resolution, and it was not reconsidered. By 1878, the socialist influence among the cigar makers was even more obvious. Three hundred cigar makers participated as a group in the June 16, 1878, Socialist Labor party picnic (Chicago Tribune June 17, 1878). The cigar makers' participation at this and other SLP events implies they were active in the late 1870s socialist electoral campaigns.

But the socialist influence was among German and not Anglo-American cigar makers. The city had about equal numbers of each throughout the period; the 1880 Census reports that there were 599 U.S.-born and 667 German-born cigar makers out of a total of 1,599 cigar makers in the city (U.S. Census of Population 1880, Table 36). By 1879, a serious split had developed between largely German socialists and largely native-born reformers. The latter felt that the revival of trade signaled the need to return to the reformist politics of the 1860s; the Germans disagreed. The result was the secession of the Anglo-Americans. As the Tribune reported on March 29, 1879 (p. 29): "The Cigarmakers Union, having been turned into a Socialistic and political organization by the leaders, some of the members became dissatisfied, and, with other cigar-makers, have organized a new union and procured a charter. It is known as No. 14."

The problems between the two factions were only beginning. At the International convention in September 1879, a leader of the socialist union no. 11 sent from Chicago caused a great stir.

His propositions were so extreme, and of so high-flown a character that the Convention resolved to strike them entirely off the minutes. Six months prior to this convention, Union 11, Chicago, had been split into two divisions; the trades union men quitting No. 11, which was evidently neither more nor less than a socialistic club, and organizing Union 14, which is at present one of our most flourishing unions. Scarcely had the delegates returned to Chicago when a general uproar took place.

Union 11 denounced the International Union in a public meeting as being of no benefit to the craft. Thereupon the officers of Union 14 preferred charges against them. The executive Board promptly revoked their [no. 11's] charter, and thus weeded out those professional kickers from the ranks of the International Union. (Cigar Makers Official Journal 15th Session Proceedings, October 1883, 21)

Political splits remained in the union despite the union's engaging in a successful strike in 1879. As the Tribune noted:

Many of the cigarmakers claim that the dissension in their ranks is caused by the Socialist Union #11 which they allege is run in the interests of Mr. Sam Goldwater and his political friends. Union #14 claims to be run solely in the interests of the trade and its members defy anyone to point out any instance of their participation in politics . The great objection raised by the trade to the organization of one local union is the fear that it will be used as the tool of some party. (Chicago Tribune October 10, 1879, 17, emphasis added)

Clearly, the "party" the moderates were concerned about was the SLP; the tendency they were worried about was that of the German cigar makers to form socialist "political societies."

As long as prosperity reigned, such political differences could usually be handled. But by the fall of 1883, the developing recession was hurting the cigar trade; workers in trades that produced luxury goods such as cigars were particularly hurt by the business cycle because consumers cut back on purchases of such goods first. Cigar makers were also under severe pressure from tenement and sweatshop cigar manufacturing and the mechanization of the trade. These conditions aided the organizing of an anarchist cigar makers union in Chicago; such an organization had already been formed in New York City as early as 1881 under the name the Progressive Cigarmakers Union.

The trouble in New York had begun when the International Union attempted to secure the passage of a bill abolishing tenement house cigar manufacturing, an action consistent with the usual exclusionary craft union practices. However, largely German anarchists felt that the tenement house workers ought to be organized into rather than excluded from the union. The president of the International reacted to the political attacks by the German anarchists with an attack of his own in his report to the union in 1883:

I deem it my duty to make you fully acquainted with the history of the troubles in New York City, and the causes which have created the same. These causes derive importance from the fact that they are directly traceable to a method of political agitation prevailing in Europe. This method may be useful there, aiming as it does at the establishment of a republican form of government. The working classes of this country are striving for an improvement of their condition, and their line of policy is sufficiently indicated by the trade union movement. Hence, any attempt to force upon them methods which are not consonant with actual conditions will fail, and moreover, retard the practical labor movement.

Within the last three years a number of so-called socialists have arrived from Europe. Their object in joining the union, according 'to their own statements, frequently repeated, was to propagate the principles of socialism—i.e., to turn the same into a socialistic political club. True, these elements already existed in the union, creating a certain amount of trouble, but being few in number they could do but little mischief. They not only created trouble among cigar makers, but also among other trades. Full many a trade organization in the large cities has been wrecked by them. They have a small following in almost every large city, which compelled me to watch their movements for years, knowing that a few fanatics can do more mischief than a hundred can do good.

The socialistic members of the union, especially those among them who had not been longer than from six months to a year in the United States, believed that the special mission of the International Union was to be the tail of the Socialistic kite. (Supplement to the Cigar Makers Official Journal 15th Session Proceedings, 1883, 23-24)

These pronouncements ought to be interpreted with caution because they are written in the heat of a political battle; it is in the president's interest to suggest that the socialists have little support and that they are mainly recent arrivals who do not understand American conditions. The statement does show clearly the nature of the political split within the union as well as its ethnic basis.

Unhappy with the reformism of the International, the New York Progressives seceded in 1881, vowing to organize and not to exclude the tenement house cigar workers. As the Cigar Makers Official Journal (April 1884, 6) put it, "Their members [the Progressives] are now employed in every tenement house factory in New York, and they even boast that that is the way to educate them to trades unionism." The president of the International made the political differences clear when he described tenement house or-

ganizing as "nothing less than open war against the fundamental principles of trades unionism. The primary object of trades unionism is to maintain a fair rate of wages, sufficient to secure for the workers the necessary means whereby to maintain reasonable comfort and a respectable standing in society" (Supplement to the Cigar Makers Official Journal 15th Session Proceedings, 1883, 25).

The factionalism soon spread west in the fall of 1883 when a number of cigar makers announced their intention to form a Progressive Cigarmakers Union in Chicago. Five hundred attended a recruitment meeting called by the New York Progressives. One of their leaders spoke in both German and English, tearing the International Union to pieces, contrasting the corrupt International with the Progressive Cigarmakers Union, which he said was founded on democratic and anarchist principles and had no president at all. He asked those present to found a progressive union in Chicago (Chicago Tribune September 24, 1883).

There was apparently a great uproar; the Chicago Times reported that the meeting was animated and confused and that the police had to be called to restore order. Supporters of neither the Progressives nor the International had a clear majority at the meeting (Chicago Times September 24, 1883). Those favoring the Progressives were largely German, undoubtedly from union no. 11; fifteen to twenty "mostly Germans" expressed their willingness to join the anarchists at the meeting. Many more joined later that night when an official branch of the Progressive Cigarmakers Union was founded in the city (Chicago Daily News October 24, 1883).

Opposition to the Progressives came from the reformers of union no. 14. The union's president appealed to those present to remain loyal to the International; the president of the International Typographical Union appeared at the meeting to argue the same thing. As the printer put it, "It would be folly to espouse the cause of a few designing men," thereby jeopardizing one's own interests (Inter-Ocean September 24, 1883, 6). After the meeting, the financial secretary of union no. 14 stated:

There is not real trouble and what appears to be such is caused by a few socialists [sic ] who have been unceremoniously bounced from the union because they are fomentors of trouble and of no advantage to us. These men are not satisfied with the effort of the working classes to improve

their condition and are attempting to force themselves to the front and retard the practical labor movement. (Chicago Times September 24, 1883, 11)

He also claimed that the Progressive membership consisted of a small group of socialists recently arrived from Europe, of the "poorer class of workmen, who can scarcely hold a situation or earn a good living and are all inclined to socialism." He suggested, following his International president, that the purpose of the Progressives was to "propagate the principles of socialism and to turn the union into a socialist political club" (Chicago Times September 24, 1883, 11).

The factionalism between anarchists and reformers occurring largely along ethnic lines resulted in a trade split right down the middle because there were approximately equal numbers of native-born and German cigar makers in the city. Nativist sentiments soon began to surface in the attacks on the Progressives. The Cigar Makers Official Journal (November 1883, 43) said of the Chicago meeting: "Then Mr. Walther commenced one of his long-winded German socialistic speeches .... the whole meeting was a concocted socialistic gathering consisting of the editor of the German socialistic press, his reporters, and hangers on who were not cigar makers, but came for the sole purpose of creating confusion."

The moderates claimed the new union would recruit very few. No. 14's financial secretary said: "I do not anticipate any trouble [with the Progressives] as our union is too strong to be much disturbed by anything they might try to do, and there is no possibility that the new organization will gain a very strong foothold because its principles are absolutely bad and not in accordance with American institutions" (Chicago Times September 24, 1883, 12). The Trades and Labor Assembly was apparently more alarmed; the forty delegates to it, half of whom were printers, denounced the attempt to organize a Progressive union, calling it "a piece of socialistic legislation which could only result in harm to the laboring man!" (Chicago Tribune October 1, 1883, 7; Chicago Typographical Union minutes May 30, 1880; April 26, 1885).

The predictions of union no. 14 and of the International Union concerning the potential success of the Progressive recruitment efforts did not prove accurate. By December 1883, the Progres-

sives had one hundred fifty members, far more than the twelve the reformers had suggested they would enroll. The reformist cigar makers were forced to try to crush the upstart organization by refusing to work with its members (Chicago Tribune December 14, 1883).

But the Progressive Cigarmakers Union continued to grow, soon making very clear its sympathy with anarchist principles. On Sunday, February 17, 1884, the Progressives called for a meeting to consider the eight-hour day. Many of the speeches were in German and were quite militant. At this meeting, the Progressives adopted—word for word—the Pittsburgh Manifesto as a statement of their principles. They called for the destruction of class rule by revolutionary action, cooperative organization of production, free education for both sexes, equal rights for all sexes and races, and the regulation of all public affairs by contracts between autonomous communes and associations (Chicago Tribune February 18, 1884). The anarchists went on to resolve:

That labor legislation, having for its presupposition class rule, will not and cannot lead to the abolition of class domination and the establishment of a free society, we consider it a device by which the oppressed are being led astray by designing politicians, and that the only means through which our aims, the emancipation of all mankind can be accomplished is open rebellion of the despoiled of all nations against the existing social, economic, and political institutions. (Chicago Tribune February 18, 1884, 25)

The Trades and Labor Assembly held a meeting attended by union no. 14 the same day the Progressives were making these revolutionary pronouncements. The assembly heard a report from a committee appointed to study the "Relations Between Labor and Capital." But this committee did not espouse revolution; on the contrary, it suggested only that some branches of industry were being monopolized by a few employers to the detriment of workers and that child and female labor were being used at half wages, especially in cigar factories. Several resolutions were passed at this meeting; one praised the city council for refusing to give city printing to nonunion shops and for not allowing convict labor on city hall construction. Another recommended that Chicago increase the number of tenement and factory inspectors to ten. Another suggested that the city stop burning manure in its buildings (Chicago

Tribune February 18, 1884). The contrast with the resolutions passed by the Progressive cigar makers could not have been more striking.

The inadequacy of a purely economic explanation of labor politics in Chicago is shown by these dramatic differences between the politics of the German Progressives and the native born in union no. 14. Although both unions were in the same trade, in the same city, facing the same devastating economic conditions, the Germans advocated abolishing the economic and political systems, and the Anglo-Americans advocated minor legislative reform.

Workers' Coalitions in the 1880s: the Knights of Labor, the Trades and Labor Assembly, and the Central Labor Union

Soon an alternative to both the reformism of the Trades and Labor Assembly and the revolutionary sentiments of the anarchists was defined. The Knights of Labor had begun organizing workers as early as 1877 in Chicago, but they did not achieve real influence in the labor movement until the mid 1880s. The significance of the Knights lies mainly in their attempt to create economic organizations, called assemblies, that mixed both skilled and unskilled workers. The idea was to draw on the organizational and financial resources of the skilled in order to support organizing the unskilled. Thus, although some Knights were in particular trades, others belonged to mixed assemblies based on ethnic or geographical criteria. The Knights also often gathered together previously unattached unions or revived failing locals (Commons et al. 1918, 2: 345).

Their emphasis on organizing the unskilled meant the Knights were ethnically heterogeneous. They also included groups that craft unions generally excluded; women were included in Knights assemblies as early as 1879. Women held some of the most powerful Knights' positions in the mid 1880s; Elizabeth Rodgers, for example, was the Master Workman (sic ) of District Council 24.

On more general political questions, however, the Knights followed the lead of the reformist Trades and Labor Assembly and rejected the revolutionary militancy of the anarchists. The Knights accepted the basic capitalist economy and the existing political sys-

tem. They emphasized the importance of forming cooperatives and mutual aid societies in ameliorating the plight of the worker. They called for reforms such as the breakup of monopolies that were robbing workers of their opportunity to found and own successful businesses. The Knights were a backward-looking organization, wishing to return to a competitive system of small producers and farm owners. As the Chicago Knights of Labor suggested (March 1886, 1):

We do not war upon capital, our aims are not to put the grip of an iron hand upon its neck and strangle it, but on the contrary we desire to assist capital in building up of the great industries of the country and to enlarge to the utmost the sphere of their usefulness. All we ask of capital is to give us what is justly our portion of the proceeds of our toil and to ameliorate to the greatest possible extent the condition of the toiling millions of earth, give us more time at home with our families, more time to improve our minds and to cultivate our social relations. We are censured for striking for our rights, it is true that sometimes we do that, but it is after all other means have failed, for one of the great fundamental principles of the order is that every endeavor in our power must be made to arbitrate our differences and only as a last resort, when all moral suasion has failed do we make a virtue of necessity and strike for our rights.

The Knights sometimes did engage in militant strikes, despite the conservatism of the organization's official ideology. But these often were mobilized by the unskilled against the wishes of Knights leaders, who were generally skilled craftsmen.

Many of Chicago's SLP members, including Albert Parsons and George Schilling, joined the first Chicago Knights assembly when it was established in August 1877. The Knights grew slowly and had little influence in these early years, in part because they were a secret, oath-bound organization. Catholic church opposition to such "heathen," secret practices kept many unskilled Irish Catholics from joining the organization. By 1878, there were only eight local assemblies organized in the first district assembly, no. 24. In 1881, an organizer came to the city, hired eight additional organizers, and established fourteen local assemblies among the skilled and unskilled (Bogart and Thompson 1920, 456).

By 1882, the district assembly had opened a headquarters and a labor bureau and begun to publish a paper, the Progressive Age .

Membership increased from 1,464 in 1879 to 1,518 in 1880, 1,766 in 1881, and 2,192 in 1882. After the 1881 decision to become a nonsecret, public organization, the Knights assemblies began to recruit large numbers of unskilled Irish; by the mid 1880s, a third of the Knights leadership was Irish (Nelson 1986b, 4).

The recession resulted in membership declines through July 1885, when the Knights had only 551 members in the city. But their membership then skyrocketed, primarily as a result of the success of a Knights-led strike against Jay Gould's western Union Pacific and Wabash railroads. By July 1886, the Knights had eighty-eight local assemblies, a membership of 14,000, and published a weekly paper called the Chicago Knights of Labor ; they had 25,000 members by the end of the year (Bogart and Thompson 1920, 457).

By the mid 1880s, the Trades and Labor Assembly had admitted Knights assemblies into membership and was cooperating with them to promote moderate labor legislation as the answer to the plight of the working class. One hundred trade union and Knights delegates from around the state responded to the assembly's call to found the Illinois State Federation of Labor. This March 1884 convention was held in Chicago. Chicago delegates were distributed as follows: five each for Cigarmakers Union no. 14, Chicago Typographical Union no. 16, stonecutters, bricklayers and stonemasons, and seamen; four for both painters and coopers; three for carpenters and joiners; and two each for shoemakers and Scandinavian typographers. The following unions had one delegate: iron molders, journeymen horseshoers, woodworking machine hands, trunk makers, tanners, and curriers (Staley 1930, 21).

The Chicago Trades and Labor Assembly was now led almost exclusively by Anglo-American unionists (Nelson 1986b, 3). The conservative printers and construction tradesmen of the Anglo labor aristocracy wished to keep the convention within strict trade union channels; a Tribune reporter stated simply that it was "generally understood that no socialists will be admitted" (February 26, 1884; cited in Staley 1930, 23). The platform passed by the convention was reformist and denied the validity of radical socialist and anarchist principles. It included the following planks:

(1) The total abolition of the contract labor system.

(2) The establishment of boards of arbitration to settle disputes between employers and employees.

(3) The enactment and enforcement of a law making eight hours a day a legal day's work, excepting those engaged in agriculture.

(4) To fix the liability of employers for damages for loss of life or limb to the employee.

(5) The enactment of an efficient apprenticeship law.

(6) The prohibition of the employment of children under fourteen years of age in workshops and factories.

(7) The adoption and enforcement of a compulsory education system.

(8) The more rigid enforcement of the laws relating to the ventilation of mines and the safety of miners, and the enactment of penalties for their violation.

(9) The abolition of the conspiracy or LaSalle Black Law [which had been used to prevent union organizing] and the passage of a statutory enactment declaring illegal all iron clad contracts which deprive the workman of the privilege of membership in any peaceably conducted trade and labor organization.

(10) The relief of tax-payers on mortgaged real estate by giving a proportionate lien against the holders of mortgages for taxes paid.

(11) Weekly payments by all corporations for labor performed the previous week, and the complete abolition of the truck system.

(12) The abolition of land monopoly by non-resident holders.

(13) To make it a criminal offense to gamble in or create corners on the necessaries of life.

(14) The legal right of labor organizations, as such, to hold property and conduct cooperative businesses.

(15) A more complete control of the railroads and waterways of the state as common carriers, in the interests of the people.

(16) The appointment of inspectors of workshops and habitations, of food, drink, drugs, etc. (Staley 1930, 192)

These are significant reforms that would greatly improve the condition of the working class if enacted, but they would not alter the basic outlines of the capitalist economic and political systems. For example, only boards of arbitration are suggested for settling disputes between employers and employees; the wage labor system is accepted as legitimate; unemployment is dealt with by measures that would benefit those already in craft unions (such as abolishing contract convict and child labor and instituting the eight-hour day); land monopolies are to be destroyed only if they

are held by nonresidents; and the railways and waterways are to be regulated, not nationalized.

The political lines were clearly drawn between reformist Knights and trade unionists in the Trades and Labor Assembly and anarchists in the Progressive Cigarmakers Union. On May 6, 1884, the Progressives, wishing to have a wider forum for their anarchist philosophy and principles, requested membership in the Trades and Labor Assembly. The secretary of Cigarmakers Union no. 14 stated that they had had the "horrible gall" to do this. He need not have worried about their being admitted to the assembly, however. The Progressives' credentials were referred to the executive committee, which reported that, on a thorough examination, they found the Progressive Union of Cigarmakers antagonistic to the executive board and a political body rather than a union. The committee therefore unanimously rejected the Progressives' request for membership. The delegates of the twenty-three unions in attendance, one of whom was from the rival Cigarmakers Union no. 14, unanimously accepted the report (Cigar Makers Official Journal June 1884).

Thereupon, the Progressive Cigarmakers Union issued a call to all unions in the city to secede from the conservative Trades and Labor Assembly in order to form a Central Labor Union (CLU) with a "more progressive" policy. Several of the city's German unions responded to this call to accept the principles of the Black International; the metalworkers, carpenters and joiners, cabinetmakers, and butchers all sent delegates to the founding meeting. By late June 1884, the German tanners, German tailors, and the German Typographical Union no. 9 had also joined the CLU.^[*]

The CLU adopted a declaration of principles in October 1884 that was modeled closely on the Pittsburgh Manifesto. It suggested that labor created all wealth, that there could be no harmony between labor and capital, and that strikes as presently conducted were doomed to failure. It urged every worker to reject capitalist political parties and to devote his or her entire energy to labor unions in order to resist ruling-class encroachment upon their liberties.

* This collaboration between trade unions and anarchist cells took place only in Chicago, thus giving the Chicago movement a mass base it did not have anywhere else. In fact, the Chicago anarchist movement anticipated the French, Spanish, and American syndicalist union movements at the turn of the century. See Bottomore (1983, 476-77) for a description of these movements.

As the CLU openly took its stand with the Black International and the few remaining members of the Socialist Labor party joined forces with the moderate Trades and Labor Assembly, the conflict between the revolutionaries and the reformers intensified. A number of public debates took place between the Anglo-American former socialists and the German anarchists; Pierce (1957, 3:267) reports that "clashes between the factions led at times to physical violence."

The Social Revolutionary movement achieved new visibility in late 1884 with the founding of the Alarm , a publication that is a good source of material on the anarchists' politics. In the paper, Albert Parsons kept up the attack on the Trades and Labor Assembly for condoning a system of "wage slavery" and "slow starvation." He suggested that the "social war has come, and those who are not with us are against us" (cited in Pierce 1957, 3: 268).

Lucy Parsons, one of the founders of the Working Women's Union in the mid 1870s, was also a crucial figure in the socialist and anarchist movements in the city. In a famous article in the Alarm entitled "To Tramps," she discussed the situation of the unemployed who constantly wandered Chicago streets searching for work, food, clothing, and shelter. She condemned the Relief and Aid Society for its failure to prevent the deaths of many in the city by starvation and exposure. The previous winter had resulted in the suicide by drowning of many who had chosen to die quickly rather than by slow starvation. Lucy Parsons told the tramp contemplating suicide to learn how to make bombs in order to take a few rich people with him. The essay ended with the admonition to "Learn the Use of Explosives!" (Ashbaugh 1976, 55).

Other authors also wrote of the beneficial effects of dynamite bombs: "What is Dynamite? It is the latest discovery of science by which power is placed in the hands of the weak and defenseless to protect them against the domination of others. One pound of DYNAMITE is better than a bushel of BALLOTS!" (Pierce 1957, 3: 268). Specific directions for manufacturing and setting bombs, as well as recommendations concerning assassination and street fighting, also were published in the pages of the Alarm ; this caused it to live up to its name among many in the English-speaking population who could now read about the violent pronouncements of the revolutionaries for the first time in English.

The anarchists' bark was much worse than their bite, how-

ever. Although their rhetoric was revolutionary, their actual tactics tended toward the usual rallies and militant speeches. For example, the CLU and the Social Revolutionary movement organized a procession of the unemployed on Thanksgiving Day in 1884. From three to five thousand gathered at the joint office of the Alarm and the Arbeiter Zeitung and listened to several speeches. They simply marched through the South Side, past the homes of prominent Chicago businessmen, including Pullman, Field, Swift, Armour, and McCormick.

In another demonstration at the dedication of the new Board of Trade building on April 28, 1885, Albert Parsons spoke to a group at Market Square, asking, "How many of you could give twenty dollars for a supper tonight? While those men are enjoying a sumptuous supper, we workingmen are starving" (Adelman 1976, 9). Pointing to the black and red flags, the next speaker said that the red one represented the common blood of humanity, the black one, starvation. It was fitting that black flags were unfurled at the opening of the $2 million Board of Trade building, for that structure symbolized starvation for the masses and privileges for the few. The speeches were cheered (Flinn 1973, 226). Someone then proposed forming a line and marching around the "Board of Thieves" building singing the "Marseillaise," to the accompaniment of a brass band, so that the "eaters of twenty dollar pie" could not fail to hear them (Flinn 1973, 228). Finding their way blocked by the police, the marchers made their way to the office of the Arbeiter Zeitung , where Parsons suggested that the next time the police broke up a peaceful meeting, the marchers should defend themselves with dynamite (Ashbaugh 1976, 59).

The CLU and the Social Revolutionaries continued their demonstrations in the summer and autumn of 1885. On the Sunday preceding Labor Day, a grand march was organized to offset the parade of the Trades and Labor Assembly planned for the next day. One of the CLU leaders stated: "There is going to be a parade tomorrow. Those fellows [in the Trades and Labor Assembly] want to reconcile labor and capital. They want to reconcile you to your starvation and your shanties" (Flinn 1973, 250).

How strong were the Social Revolutionaries and the Central Labor Union, and who were their supporters? These are not easy questions to answer; there are no surviving documents, certainly

no membership rolls of the CLU or the Social Revolutionary clubs. This may have resulted from the atmosphere of political repression, which forced these groups to carry on their activities in secret.

But it is clear that the revolutionary politics of the Central Labor Union did not confine the organization to political marginality. In late 1884, there were six groups of the Black International in the city. By mid 1885, there were seventeen with a total membership of around one thousand. The membership was over two thousand a year later (Commons et al. 1918, 2: 390; David 1958, 110).

Movement strength cannot be measured by Social Revolutionary club membership alone. By the end of 1885, the Central Labor Union, which endorsed the anarchist Pittsburgh Manifesto, was approximately equal in strength to the Trades and Labor Assembly; the CLU consisted of thirteen unions; the Trades and Labor Assembly had nineteen (Commons et al. 1918, 2: 387). By the spring of 1886, with recruiting boosted by the continuing recession, the CLU represented twelve thousand city workers, more than the Trades and Labor Assembly, and had twenty-two unions in its ranks (Ashbaugh 1976, 56; Pierce 1957, 3: 267).

Despite its rapid growth, the anarchist movement never managed to inspire the city's Anglo-American workers. Parsons organized a Social Revolutionary "American Group" in November 1883 with only five members. Even though the membership of that group increased to forty-five by October 1884 and ninety by April 1885, it remained the only native-born club; it is doubtful whether the native born ever constituted more than one-tenth of the anarchist strength in Chicago during this entire period.

In contrast, Germans gave the anarchist movement strong support, as indicated by the circulation figures of the Social Revolutionary newspapers. The English-language Alarm had a circulation of three thousand a week at its height; but the German-language Arbeiter Zeitung published between five and six thousand copies a day between 1883 and 1886, and its Sunday edition, Die Fackel , published between nine and twelve thousand. The Vorbote , another German weekly, had a circulation of between seven and eight thousand in the mid 1880s (Commons et al. 1918, 2: 390).

The anarchist movement derived its real strength from the close association of the Social Revolutionaries with the city's German and Bohemian trade unions. In April 1886, the Central Labor Union

included the eleven largest unions in the city representing the following trades: German printers, fringe and tassel workers, fresco painters, cabinetmakers, bakers, Bohemian lumber shovers, laborers, hod carriers, brewers and maltsters, coopers, brick makers, both Bohemian and German carpenters, wagon workers, harness makers, butchers, metalworkers, and the union that had started it all, the Progressive Cigarmakers (Commons et al. 1918, 2: 391).

The Eight-Hour Movement

All three of the major Chicago labor coalitions—the Central Labor Union, the Trades and Labor Assembly, and the Knights of Labor—soon were able to mobilize a powerful movement around one of the most important labor demands of the nineteenth century: the eight-hour day. Demands for shorter hours were heard in the United States as early as 1825, when the issue was the ten-hour day. The movement alternated between periods of great strength and weakness in the decades that followed. In Chicago, there was agitation for the eight-hour day in both the sixties and the seventies; the early trades assembly successfully lobbied for a state law mandating the eight-hour day that was never enforced, and the eight-hour demand was heard frequently during the July 1877 strikes.

The Trades Council of 1879 demanded the reduction of working hours from ten to eight, holding a three-day demonstration with Ira Steward, the most prominent eight-hour theorist, as a speaker. The workers founded a short-lived Eight Hour League in 1879, and the furniture workers national union made it a key demand; forty-nine furniture factories in the city instituted the eight-hour day for a brief period in that year (Chicago Tribune July 6, 1879).

Labor had several goals in mind in demanding the eight-hour day; in fact, the idea of shortening the hours of labor eventually became a panacea for all the ills suffered by the working class. Ira Steward suggested that the increased leisure resulting from the shortening of the workday would create a better social order. Workers could not be intelligent citizens unless they had the leisure time to attend night school, to read, to discuss political questions, and to attend political meetings (Cahill 1932, 14). The eight-hour day would also ease the physical and mental strain caused by hard

physical labor and by the tedious mechanized production process. Healthy workers would be more productive workers.

The argument for increased leisure time was also supported through reference to suburbanization. Workers needed to participate in the more healthful and more natural suburban family life; the longer journey to work from the suburbs necessitated a shorter workday as well. Steward argued that decreased hours would give the workers the time to observe the life-style of the largely native-born middle class. Their wish for that more affluent way of life would lead to successful demands for higher wages on the part of the working class, which would in turn create buying power that would stimulate the economy.

These arguments appealed to many workers, especially to the Anglo-American labor aristocrats who could realistically aspire to middle-class status. But the broader appeal of the eight-hour movement—to those of all economic statuses within the working class—came from the argument that a reduction in hours would solve the unemployment problem by spreading the available work among a larger number of workers (Cahill 1932, 18).

The precursor of the American Federation of Labor, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, took the lead in the eight-hour movement in 1884 when it resolved that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labor from and after May 1, 1886." They included no provision for attaining this objective, but they eventually chose the general strike.

Chicago unions began active agitation for the demand on November 11, 1885, when the Bricklayers and Stonemasons Union resolved that they would work only eight hours a day after May 1, 1886 (Chicago Tribune November 12, 1885). On November 17, George Schilling of the Trades and Labor Assembly spoke on the issue at a meeting of the Carpenters and Joiners Union, suggesting the need for an organization to agitate for the demand; on Sunday, November 22, a number of trade unionists in the Trades and Labor Assembly heeded the call and organized the Eight Hour Association .

The association issued a manifesto calling on all workers to help establish the eight-hour day. The Eight Hour Association did not see shorter hours as a means of restructuring the capitalist system;

they were viewed as a reform that would reduce unemployment and provide workers with more leisure time. The association was initially organized by the native born, as is clear in this statement from the manifesto: "Has machinery in your trade abolished the demand for skilled artisans and craftsmen? Have the native American skilled workers in your trade been supplanted by cheap labor from Europe and Canada? Are wages sufficient for the support of native American families?" (Chicago Tribune November 23, 1885, 35).

Because of the power of the issue and the tremendous organizing momentum created by the movement, all the major labor organizations in the city—including the Trades and Labor Assembly, the Knights of Labor, the Central Labor Union, and the Social Revolutionary clubs—were soon involved in agitating for the eight-hour day (David 1958, 182). But the issues that had split the labor movement did not disappear under the impact of this movement, and factionalism between the reformers and revolutionaries continued.

Initially, the anarchists had been skeptical of the movement, feeling that a reduction in hours would not solve the problems of the working class because it would not transform the existing system of wage labor or the oppressive state. As Albert Parsons and August Spies argued in the Alarm of November 21, 1885 (cited in Flinn 1973, 260):

The private possession or ownership of the means of production and exchange places the propertyless class in the power and control of the propertied class, since they can refuse bread, or the chance to earn it, to all the wage classes that obey their dictation. Eight hours, or less hours, is, therefore, under existing conditions, a lost battle . The private property system employs only to exploit (rob) it, and while the system is in vogue, the victims—those whom it disinherits—have only the choice of submission or starvation.

We do not antagonize the eight hour movement, ... we simply predict that it is a lost battle, and we prove that even if the eight hour system should be established at this late day, the wage-workers would gain nothing. They would still remain the slaves of their master.

In fact, the Social Revolutionaries never accepted the idea that the eight-hour day could be the answer to all the ills of the working class. But the Chicago revolutionaries could not be content to remain aloof from the most widespread and well-organized worker

movement in the city's history. They determined to use it as a tool to agitate for their own more revolutionary beliefs; the organizational tool for such agitation was the Central Labor Union.

While the CLU was attempting to convince Chicago workers of the necessity of social revolution, the Trades and Labor Assembly counseled moderation. The assembly issued a circular to all manufacturing firms and employers in mid January 1886. It suggested that the presence in the city of large numbers of unemployed was a constant source of evil in the community and that Congress had supported the movement by making eight hours a legal day's work for government employees. It stated that the adoption of the eight-hour day would give employment to one-fifth more workers, many of whom had been displaced by machines. The circular ended as follows: "The workingmen of Chicago are ready to make sacrifices in wages in order that more people may find employment and for the general good of the whole community. Surely such a self-sacrificing spirit should meet with a cordial response from the employing class" (Chicago Tribune January 19, 1886, 5).

This moderate stand, suggesting that workers would be willing to sacrifice wages in order to gain the eight-hour day, was to become the basis of a political split between the Trades and Labor Assembly's Eight Hour Association and the Central Labor Union. By the movement's peak in April and May 1886, most of the city's German and Bohemian unions were demanding ten hours' pay for eight hours' work; the elite Anglo-American unions were declaring their willingness to settle for a proportionate wage cut along with the reduction in hours.

By March 1886, the eight-hour movement was mobilizing an unprecedented proportion of the Chicago working class for meetings and demonstrations. The Trades and Labor Assembly sponsored a demonstration at a West Side Turner hall. By eight o'clock on March 15, four thousand crowded into a hall meant for two thousand; three thousand more gathered outside, necessitating the erection of several speakers' platforms. The Tribune reported the presence of at least twelve hundred from the Bricklayers Union, five hundred from the Shoemakers Union, five hundred from the Cigarmakers no. 14, and three hundred from the boxmakers—all carrying banners and transparencies with moderate reform mes-

sages such as "Oppose Child Labor!" "Equality to All!" "Look How You Vote Next Fall!" "Down With Convict Labor!" (Chicago Tribune March 16, 1886, 10).

The meeting adopted the following resolutions:

Whereas—The reduction in the hours of daily labor to eight would ... afford steady employment to all industrious men and women, create steady markets for the manufacturer, the farmer, and the merchant and dissipate the portentious clouds of discontent that too frequently of late obscure the social and political horizon, and

Whereas—While we fully recognize the oft-repeated assertion that under any and all circumstances the wages of labor are likely to fluctuate, we hold as a fact established beyond dispute by history that every step gained by the toiling masses in reducing the hours of labor is never lost but is permanent and enduring be it

Resolved—That we are heartily and determinedly in favor of the eight hour work day from and after May x, 1886 and now pledge ourselves to use all fair and honorable means to secure its general adoption by every trade and occupation and,

Resolved—That we invite the cooperation of the press and the pulpit and earnestly urge upon all thinking people the necessity of a dispassionate and candid discussion of this momentous question. (Chicago Tribune March 16, 1886, 12)

This moderate statement indicates that, despite their presence in the same movement, the political split between the reformers and the revolutionaries remained. The Eight Hour Association wanted moderate reform, not revolution, considering the capitalist system perfectly acceptable. Their position lacks class consciousness, suggesting as it does that all classes have an interest in reducing hours of labor and enlisting the aid of such "working class enemies" as the middle and upper classes, the press, and the pulpit.

The Eight Hour Association held an even larger rally on April 10. More than seven thousand attended, and again thousands more blocked the doors. The meeting was attended by more than a thousand of the Bricklayers and Stonemasons Union, six hundred from the upholsterers, five hundred clothing cutters, and numerous other unions and Knights assembly members. The platform was occupied by over a hundred union, Trades and Labor Assembly, and Knights officers. As Nelson (1986a, 1) reports, 48 percent of those

on the platform had Irish surnames, 32 percent had British names, and only 14 percent were immigrants from continental Europe.

Speakers repeated the same moderate themes from the earlier rally, and the assembly got its wish concerning the clergy's support. There were a number of clergy on the platform, and three Protestant ministers spoke to the crowd. All speeches were in English. One minister stressed the importance of temperance and self-improvement:

It's hard to work fourteen hours and then go home and read a book. My heart goes out to you workingmen who love your books and are denied the time to gratify it. But we must get the leisure first. I don't believe in drinking myself, but for all that I don't believe that all of you are tee-totallars, nor do I believe that if you had the leisure you would spend your time in the saloon. (Chicago Tribune April 11, 1886, 32)

An Irish-born Knights of Labor leader also stressed the temperance theme and reiterated the importance of gaining the support of the clergy and press: "I tell ye fellows what to boycott, whisky! Quit crookin' your elbows and buildin' brick houses for saloonkeepers an' ye'all eat porterhouse steak instead of liver. We don't have to make this fight alone. We've got friends—people, and preachers, and papers" (Chicago Tribune April 11, 1886, 32). Both of these statements were greeted with wild cheers, cheers that would not have been forthcoming at a rally of antitemperance German or Bohemian workers.

The Central Labor Union and the Social Revolutionaries did not support the Trades and Labor Assembly effort. They wanted to use the movement as a stepping stone to revolution. They did not accept the reformers' call for a pay reduction and for temperance, and they did not support the attempt to recruit the clergy, the middle and upper classes, and the bourgeois press into the movement. So the CLU held a counterdemonstration on Sunday, April 25, 1886. About five thousand formed a procession six to eight abreast on Randolph Street. Red banners were flying as twenty-five mounted marshalls rode up and down the line giving instructions to the workers; bands played, and thousands watched as the parade marched through the city center to the lakefront.

The Tribune reported that none of the members of the Trades and Labor Assembly attended this gathering. Nearly all the marchers

were German, Bohemian, and Polish; "there was scarcely an American, Irishman, Scandinavian, or Scotchman among them" (Chicago Tribune April 26, 1886, 19). The workers carried banners reading "The Brewer Works All Day and Night and Hardly Gets His Rest!" "Our Civilization—The Bully and the Policeman's Club!" "The Fountain of Right is Might!" "Workingmen Arm!" "Right is Might, We're the Strongest!" The sentiments were clearly more militant than those at the Trades and Labor Assembly rally.

Twenty-three unions were represented, showing the great strength of the CLU at this point. The following list indicates the number attending from each union:

The CLU managed to mobilize over eight thousand workers for a march in support of its principles. The dominance of Germans and Bohemians is obvious, with five unions being clearly identifiable as German and seven as Bohemian. The unions not clearly

identifiable—the Hand Labor Union, Lumberyard Workers, Cabinetmakers, Metal Workers, Brewery Workers, Beerkeg Coopers, Saddlers, and Butchers—are all known to have had a high proportion of Germans and Bohemians in their trades (Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics Report, 1884). The strength of anarchism was due largely to the anarchists' ability to mobilize unskilled and skilled workers within the German and Bohemian trade union movement.

The rally itself drew approximately twenty-five thousand Germans, Bohemians, and Poles (Nelson 1986b, 2). The most militant speeches of the day were in German; there had been no German speeches at the Trades and Labor Assembly events, clearly indicating the lack of German support for their reformist politics. Speakers at the CLU rally refused to accept the eight-hour day as the only goal of the Chicago labor movement. As August Spies suggested: "If you by your combination tear down the existing state of things, if you have obtained this little bit—the eight hour day—then on, on along the road of victory until the last stone of this bastille of order of the present lies in ruins" (Chicago Tribune April 26, 1886, 22). All the speakers argued that the movement had to be continued until the social order was overthrown.

Employers all over the city were becoming concerned. Facing an increasingly powerful and militant labor movement, they began to organize themselves into manufacturers associations. The pattern was for employers to organize and pass a resolution stating that they would lock out their workers if they demanded the more radical CLU-supported demand (the eight-hour day with no change in pay). But many workers defied their employers and refused to withdraw their militant demands; included in this group were the boot and shoemakers, three thousand German and twenty-five hundred Bohemian lumber shovers, the largely German furniture workers, German cigar makers, brick makers, bakers, lathers, and thousands of mainly Irish freight handlers. The result was strikes and/or lockouts in each of these trades.

Some workers, including the largely Irish stockyard workers and the mainly native-born machinists, agreed to accept the eight-hour day at reduced wages, with future wage rates to be negotiated. The unions of boxmakers, clothing cutters, carpenters and joiners, picture frame workers, and patternmakers achieved the eight-hour day with a 20 percent pay reduction. Some workers, including

those at the Armour packinghouse (other packinghouse workers remained on strike), some of the brick makers, and the cigar makers, were granted ten hours' pay for eight hours' work. Finally, some workers—most of the clothing workers, many of the iron and steel workers, and the cloak makers—were on piece rates; the eight-hour movement was not seen as applicable to them at all (Chicago Tribune April 28-May 3, 1886).

As the movement gained strength, the split between the CLU and the Trades and Labor Assembly intensified. On April 28, George Schilling discussed the eight-hour question at a meeting of stockyard workers that included coopers, butchers, and laborers. On behalf of the Trades Assembly and the Knights of Labor, he advised those present not to press for ten hours' pay and not to strike unless absolutely necessary (Chicago Tribune April 29, 1886). The Arbeiter Zeitung was not as moderate, advising workers in late April:

In this hour we call upon the workers to arm themselves. We have but one life to lose. Defend it with every means at your disposal. In this connection we should like to caution those workingmen who have armed themselves to hide their arms for the present so that they cannot be stolen from them by a minion of order as has happened repeatedly. (Chicago Tribune May 2, 1886, 22)

A few days later one of the members of the Social Revolutionary clubs stated what had become obvious concerning the ethnic political splits that persisted despite the movement's growing power.

The German and Bohemian workers are thoroughly organized and armed and will fight to achieve their end. The brewers, maltsters, butchers, and bakers have already achieved the eight hour day. The employers won't shut down for more than a day or two, they can't risk losing their trade to the eastern cities.

The Knights of Labor are principally American and Irish; they don't train with the Germans and the Bohemians, and we can't get them to do aggressive work in the movement. They hang back and take what they can get, while the Germans and the Bohemians go out and get what they want. (Chicago Tribune May l, 1886, 5)

Both the Trades Assembly and the Central Labor Union held meetings on Sunday, May 2. The assembly's meeting opened with a resolution to form an executive committee of representatives of all trades. But this attempt to unify the assembly and the CLU failed.

One speaker suggested that he "hoped the Assembly would not destroy the hope of achieving the eight hour system by joining with anybody for whom the American flag was not good enough" and that the "Trades and Labor Assembly ought to recommend that unions drop their unreasonable demands" (Chicago Tribune May 3, 1886, 16). Although most workers were advocating the more radical ten hours' pay demand, another speaker suggested that those advocating no pay reduction were actually against the eight-hour movement and that if the unions had followed the assembly's advice in asking for eight hours' pay for eight hours' work, there would have been no trouble. The movement's ethnic split was becoming more severe and rhetoric more strident as each faction strove to lead the movement down its chosen path.

Through its Eight Hour Association, the assembly distributed this circular:

If ever there was a time in the history of the labor movement when prudence should control your counsels, the present is that time. A false or ill-advised move at this juncture may defeat the very object you have in view. Under these circumstances we deem it our duty to request you to keep this important fact in mind and shape your demands accordingly.

Our advice is that where a disagreement as to terms exists, interview the employer or employers through a committee composed of your most trusted, most discreet and reliable representatives. Base your demands on justice. Present a united front. Determine to secure the adoption of the eight hour system even if concessions to attain it be made. Act like rational men, as law-abiding citizens should.

Discountenance all resort to violence, remembering you cannot afford to offend that public sympathy which is essential to your success. Remember also, if you refuse to act upon these suggestions you will have yourselves to blame if the present golden opportunity passes unimproved. (Chicago Tribune May 4, 1886, 28)

The assembly was now advocating polite bargaining with employers to win the eight-hour reform, even if the workers had to give up previously won gains to achieve the reduction in hours.

This was not the position of the Central Labor Union. They also held a meeting on Sunday, May 2, at which a major topic was the ethnic split bedeviling the movement. The German branch of the Carpenters and Joiners Union reported it had attempted to work with its English-speaking counterparts; the attempt had been un-

successful because the English-speaking union had considered the German demand for ten hours' pay too radical. The German carpenters had decided to work for their own interests as a result. A similar report was made by the German Typographical Union no. 9, which charged the American Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 with working in the interests of the bosses (Chicago Tribune May 3, 1886). In fact after January 1885, the Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 had refused to honor German union members' cards, claiming the International no longer recognized the German union (Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 minutes, January 25, 1885). The CLU decided to appoint a committee to exchange information with the Trades and Labor Assembly but to give up all attempts to work with the assembly politically.

The Central Labor Union then sent a message to the city's workers that had little in common with the Trades and Labor Assembly circular. The CLU called on all to support the eight-hour movement and suggested that piecework must be instantly abolished because it was "slavish" and "abominable." It went on, "the laboring class will not be free from misery and want until the right to hold capital is abolished and society is merged into one class." It ended by suggesting that ministers and priests uphold the present social system, so workers ought therefore to keep away from churches (Chicago Tribune May 3, 1886, 17).

Chicago's eight-hour movement was strong despite these political differences. Bradstreet's reported that well over sixty thousand workers in the city were involved, including twenty and a half thousand clothing workers, seventeen thousand of whom were women, ten thousand lumber shovers and laborers, ten thousand metalworkers, seven thousand furniture and upholstery workers, twenty-five hundred Pullman car workers, six hundred steamfitters, and twelve thousand in miscellaneous trades. From forty to forty-five thousand had gained some sort of hours reduction by the end of the first week of May. Chicago was the center of the national movement, having nearly one-third of all those demanding the eight-hour day and over one-fifth of all those receiving the reduction in hours (Bradstreet's May 15, 1886, 1).

The depth of the movement in the city's working class made it likely to succeed. The strike was close to a general one among workers who had not yet achieved eight hours, and less street ac-

tion was necessary than during the 1877 strikes because the well-planned strike included many workers with scarce skills. But an event soon occurred that temporarily stalled the movement for a reduction in hours and destroyed the anarchist movement in the city—the Haymarket affair.

The Haymarket Affair

I shall not review the history of the Haymarket affair in great detail; Henry David (1958) and Paul Avrich (1984) have done that. I shall consider how the incident and the reaction to it illustrate the ethnic split in the Chicago labor movement between moderate Anglo-American and Irish workers and revolutionary Germans and Bohemians.

The trouble started at the McCormick Harvester factory. Because of a dispute over the discharge of union activists, the plant had been shut down in February 1886, and fourteen hundred employees had been locked out (David 1958, 187). McCormick workers called a strike, but the plant reopened in March with hundreds of new workers and Pinkertons to protect them. On May 3, the lumber shovers arranged a meeting near the works to discuss the eight-hour day. As August Spies was winding up a speech on the topic, the bell for the end of the shift rang; workers at the meeting attacked the strikebreakers with sticks and stones and drove them back into the plant (David 1958, 190).

Inspector Bonfield, the most repressive of Chicago's police captains, arrived, and the strikers fled; but they were pursued by the police, who killed one and wounded half a dozen others. Spies witnessed this and, thinking at least six workers had been killed, wrote his famous Revenge Circular, which called on all workers to "destroy the hideous monster that seeks to destroy you" (David 1958, 191-92). Arrangements were made to have a meeting on the evening of May 4 in Haymarket Square to protest police brutality.

When Spies arrived to speak at this meeting, only a few hundred workers were present. The speakers gave relatively moderate speeches; Mayor Harrison actually attended and agreed that no police action was necessary (David 1958, 199-202). As Samuel Fielden was finishing his remarks, he was interrupted by the approach of 175 police. Only two hundred workers remained, the rest having

left when a rain cloud approached. Bonfield ordered the meeting to disperse. At that moment, a dynamite bomb exploded near the first rank of the police, killing one instantly and wounding many others. The remaining police began firing indiscriminately, killing four and wounding at least twenty workers and killing and wounding many of their fellow officers (Adelman 1976, 37-38).

Reaction to this incident led to the city's and the nation's first "red scare." The anarchists were charged with a conspiracy to overthrow the entire U.S. political and economic system through the use of dynamite bombs and other violent means. An important component of the reaction was nativism; the city's middle class and the press blamed the foreign born, particularly the Germans, for advocating violent revolution and for lacking an adequate understanding of American economic and political institutions.

The city's press held the anarchists responsible for the incident, even though the culprit who threw the bomb was never identified. The Inter-Ocean "reported":

The anarchists of Chicago inaugurated in earnest last night the reign of lawlessness which they have threatened and endeavored to incite for years. They threw a bomb into the midst of a line of 200 police officers, and it exploded with fearful effect, mowing down men like cattle. Almost before the missile of death had exploded the anarchists directed a murderous fire from revolvers upon the police as if their actions were prearranged, and as the latter were hemmed in on every side—ambuscaded—the effect of the fire upon the ranks of the officers was fearful.... The collision between the police and the anarchists was brought about by the leaders of the latter, August Spies, Sam Fielden, and A. R. Parsons, endeavoring to incite a large mass-meeting to riot and bloodshed. (Cited in David 1958, 206-7)

There is scarcely one supportable assertion in this paragraph; the other daily papers presented similar stories of the incident. The Tribune (May 5, 1886, 1) denounced the anarchists as "vipers," "ungrateful hyenas," and "serpents," and it called the "toleration" they had enjoyed "excessive and ill-considered." It would be necessary to crush both anarchism and communism, or else "the people of Chicago must expect an era of anarchy and the loss of their property, if not their lives."

The nativist component of the political attack was clear in the Chicago Daily Herald (May 5, 1886, 1) account, which suggested that the anarchist movement was composed of the "off-scourings of

Europe" and that the philosophy "menaced the very foundations of American society." The middle and upper classes were a sympathetic audience for these "red scare" messages. A temporary madness seemed to engulf them, convincing them the revolution, led by a band of dark, shady, German-speaking foreigners, was at hand (Sennett 1969).

Perhaps more surprising was the reaction of the Anglo-American and Irish workers in the Trades and Labor Assembly and in the Knights of Labor. "Respectable" workers, they felt it necessary to distance themselves from the "evil" represented by anarchism. The Knights were particularly strong in their condemnation of the anarchists even though Albert Parsons had been the first registered Knight in the city. The Chicago Knights of Labor (May 8, 1886, 1) printed this disclaimer in capital letters on its front page following Haymarket:

LET IT BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE WORLD THAT THE KNIGHTS OF LABOR HAVE NO AFFILIATION, ASSOCIATION, SYMPATHY OR RESPECT FOR THE BAND OF COWARDLY MURDERERS, CUTTHROATS AND ROBBERS KNOWN AS ANARCHISTS. THEY SNEAK THROUGH THE COUNTRY LIKE MIDNIGHT ASSASSINS STIRRING UP THE PASSIONS OF IGNORANT FOREIGNERS, UNFURLING THE RED FLAG OF ANARCHY AND CAUSING RIOT AND BLOODSHED. PARSONS, SPIES, FIELDEN, MOST AND ALL THEIR FOLLOWERS, SYMPATHIZERS, AIDERS, AND ABETTORS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DEALT WITH !

The editorial went on to say that these anarchists deserved to be treated as "human monstrosities not entitled to the sympathy or consideration of any person in the world" and that they ought to be "blotted from the surface of the earth." This vendetta continued for years; in October 1886, the Knights condemned the anarchists again; they blamed the anarchist movement for the failure of the eight-hour day as late as 1889 (Chicago Knights of Labor January 26, 1889).

The other leaders of the labor reform movement in the city condemned the anarchists nearly as vociferously, despite the lack of concrete evidence against the anarchist leaders. The Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 passed the following series of resolutions after Haymarket, even though one of their former members—Albert Parsons—had been involved in the incident:

Resolved—That Chicago Typographical Union #16 condemns in unmeasured terms the heinous acts of the mob at the hay market [sic ] May 4.

And we declare the men who have by their uncivilized teachings, caused this red letter day in the history of our city to be the greatest enemy the laboring man has.

Resolved—That Chicago Typographical Union #16 hereby offers a reward of $100 for the apprehension and conviction of the scoundrel who threw the bomb that caused the death and maiming of so many officers of the law.

Resolved—That our delegates to the Trade and Labor Assembly are hereby instructed to present these resolutions to that body and ask its cooperation and endorsement in order that justice may be meted out to those violators of law and civilization. (Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 minutes, May 9, 1886)

The lack of unity in the labor movement made it possible for employers and city government to destroy the eight-hour movement, both its reformist and revolutionary tendencies. Mayor Harrison ordered all gatherings, processions, and workers' meetings broken up. Infantry regiments were put on alert, and citizens' neighborhood patrols were revived. By May 6, the police bragged that they had raided over fifty socialist and anarchist gathering places and apprehended over two hundred suspects. Many prominent anarchists—including Spies, Parsons, Fielden, Michael Schwab, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Oscar Neebe, and Louis Lingg—were arrested without warrants find held without specific charges. Police officers looking for publicity manufactured a variety of anarchist plots (David 1958, 223-24). All anarchist papers, including the Alarm and the Arbeiter Zeitung , were shut down; the former did not resume publishing until November 1887.

The nature of the scare meant that socialists, anarchists, strikers, and even conservative reform unionists were condemned; the various political tendencies in the Chicago labor movement were not differentiated. This hurt the eight-hour movement specifically and the labor movement generally. Unions were forced to distance themselves from labor militancy of any kind for years to come. As the Chicago Knights of Labor complained:

How often must the workingmen as a class deny their connection or sympathy with anarchy? It does seem as though the press at large has taken upon itself the task of convicting workingmen of socialism, anarchism, communism, and all the other isms society is heir to, regardless of the denials or protests, and it is high time that such wholesale misrepresentation ceased. (August 28, 1886; cited in Staley, 1930, 70)

The bomb caused a revulsion of feeling against the eight hour agitators and actually ended the struggle among a great number of trades and occupations.... A reign of terror came upon the "agitators." Tommy Morgan and other speakers did not dare to speak or write in the cause of shorter hours, and the movement then subsided. (Chicago Knights of Labor January 26, 1889; cited in Staley 1930, 70)

In the short term, the authorities' repressive strategy ended the eight-hour movement in the city. Most trades and unions lost their struggle for the eight-hour day. Employers felt free to rescind gains previously won by workers because there was no possibility of militant strikes in the immediate post-Haymarket period. In fact, labor activists of all stripes now found it impossible even to meet without police interference. At its peak, the movement had achieved some form of hours concession for seventy thousand workers in Chicago; by the end of the year, only ten thousand workers in the state were working the eight-hour day (Pierce 1957, 3: 289).

The Chicago Daily Herald declared that the bomb ended the eight-hour movement because after that incident the public became concerned with destroying the anarchists and became unconcerned with any question of hours and wages (David 1958, 535). And destroy the anarchist movement they did. The police and the criminal justice system charged a number of anarchists with conspiracy to murder the one policeman who was killed instantly by the bomb. David and Avrich document the many inequities in the trial of the anarchists; for example, the jury selection process was designed to ensure that only those who had already judged the defendants guilty would be chosen (David 1958, 235). The anarchists were essentially tried for their political beliefs; once the criminal justice system accepted that premise, they were doomed. The jury found seven of the defendants guilty (five Germans, one American, and one Englishman) and assigned them the death penalty: August Spies, Michael Schwab, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Louis Lingg, Albert Parsons, and Samuel Fielden.

Much of Chicago rejoiced at the news of the verdict, and one headline read, "The Scaffold Waits—Seven Dangling Nooses for the Dynamite Fiends!" (David 1958, 319). The Tribune reiterated the nativist theme in editorializing:

The bearings of this verdict, however, extend far beyond local limits. It has killed Anarchism in Chicago, and those who sympathize with its hor-

rible doctrines will speedily emigrate from her borders or at least never again make a sign of their sentiments. It goes still further than this. It is a warning to the whole brood of vipers in the Old World—the Communists, the Socialists, the Anarchists, the Nihilists—that they cannot come to this country and abuse its hospitality and its right of free speech without encountering the stern decrees of American law. The verdict of the Chicago jury will, therefore, check the emigration of organized assassins to this country. (Cited in David 1958, 320-21)

Organized labor continued to distance itself from the plight of the anarchists; only the greatly weakened Social Revolutionaries and the Central Labor Union remained consistently on the side of the condemned men. The Knights of Labor resolved the following in October 1886: "Resolved, That while asking for mercy for the condemned men, we are not in sympathy with the acts of the anarchists, nor with any attempts of individuals or associated bodies that teach or practice violent infractions of the law, believing that peaceful methods are the surest and best means to secure necessary reform" (David 1958, 325). Labor moderates did not come to the condemneds' defense until their last appeal had been denied, by which time it was too late. Spies, Fischer, Engel, and Parsons were hanged on November 11, 1887. Lingg had already committed suicide, and Schwab and Fielden's sentences had been commuted to life imprisonment.

The Haymarket Legacy

The Haymarket affair and its aftermath effectively ended the German anarchist movement, and it never reappeared. As the New Yorker Volks-Zeitung reported, "the trade union movement, which in Chicago had been stronger than in any other city in the country before Haymarket, was now at a completely low tide. The Central Labor Union had more than 40,000 members in the spring of 1886. Now a mere 5,000 are left on paper, and of these, not even 1,000 will show up at demonstrations" (cited in Keri 1986, 23). Even the Alarm , when it was finally published again on November 5, 1887, felt compelled to give up its advocacy of the use of force in the fight to emancipate the working class. Other radical organizations faced similar problems. The German American Turner Association complained of a "moral state of siege dating from the lamentable events

in Chicago. Since that time anything smacking of dissatisfaction with the public order has been banned; anyone who dares express his sympathies for the masses and their struggle for salvation is declared a revolutionary and anarchist worthy of the gallows" (cited in Keil 1986, 23).

Employers now had a free hand in crushing militant strikes; they received even greater support from the passage of various repressive labor acts, including the Merritt Conspiracy Bill, which made it a crime to conspire to perform an act of force or violence dangerous to human life, person, or property. Even a speech or written article could make one liable under the act. The Coles Anti-Boycott Law affixed penalties of $2,000 and/or two years imprisonment for anyone conspiring with another to institute a boycott (Pierce 1957, 3: 289-90).

Haymarket and its aftermath simply ruled out the more militant socialist and anarchist choices within the labor movement; the movement's reformers now defined the only major tendency. They were active on both the economic and political fronts. Politically, the Trades and Labor Assembly founded the United Labor Party in August 1886. It was a coalition of various factions, including the remnants of the Greenback movement of the late 1870s. The party polled twenty-five thousand votes in the fall 1886 elections, electing one state senator, seven members of the house, and five judges. The party lobbied successfully for reformist legislation, including an anti-convict labor law, a law against the use of private detectives to put down labor disturbances, a law to prevent discharge for engaging in union activities, and an anti-sweatshop labor act; but there were few enforcement provisions.

On the economic front, there were now no competitors for the reform unionists. The Central Labor Union had been destroyed, and the Knights of Labor in Chicago were soon dead as well. The Knights' intensive organizing in 1886 had in fact been very haphazard; they had simply induced many existing unions to affiliate with them. In 1887, skilled unions, seeing the Knights assemblies as competition, demanded that all workers affiliated with the Knights also affiliate with the skilled trade unions in the city or face exclusion from the craft. Most Chicago craftsmen obeyed the order by withdrawing from the Knights altogether, which destroyed the mixed assemblies because the unskilled were unable to support

them using their own resources. By the end of 1887, District 24 had only thirty-five hundred members, and only five hundred by 1889. The Trades and Labor Assembly expelled all Knights assemblies from the coalition in 1888 (Bogart and Thompson 1920, 467-73).

This left the labor movement in the control of the Trades and Labor Assembly unions. By 1890, sixty-five thousand Chicago workers belonged to these unions (Pierce 1957, 3: 297), which were now affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The printers had provided the model for relationships with one's employers. In February 1885, as part of a strike settlement, the union ratified the first contract in the city between a union and an employer when it received a closed shop in return for a guarantee that the union would not engage in any sort of strike, boycott, or other job action against the Telegram (Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 minutes, February 8, 1885). In early 1887, the Chicago Typographical Union became the first in the city to engage in collective bargaining with an organization of employers, the Chicago Daily Newspaper Association. The price scale agreed to was to remain in effect for five years, subject to change at the end of each year. All other disputes between the parties would be submitted to arbitration if they could not be resolved by committee; strikes and boycotts were ruled out as a means of resolving disputes.

Similar trade agreements were soon worked out in the building trades and among mill workers, marine trades, machinists, woodworking, and garment workers. The agreements gave workers greater employment security and wage increases; employers received the assurance that production would not be interrupted by strikes or business hurt by boycotts. These conditions came at the cost of accepting the basic outlines of the capitalist economic system and all the problems that system would create for workers.

Conclusions

Clearly, Chicago did not have a unified labor movement in the 1870s and 1880s. There were at least three distinct tendencies. One was a reform union path that accepted the basic outlines of the economic and political systems. Reformers were conciliatory in their relations with their employers and worked for minor adjust-

ments in the system through legislation and elections. Reform unionists aimed at higher wages, shorter hours, and a variety of changes that would make capitalism more tolerable to workers. The tendency can be traced through the skilled craft unions and mutual benefit societies of the printers, machinists, and construction trades unions and through several trades coalitions, including the General Trades Assembly in the 1860s and the Council of Trades and Labor Unions and the Trades and Labor Assembly of the 1870s and 1880s.

This reformist model of economic action and political organizing was weaker in periods of economic distress, such as the 1873-1879 depression, when many craft unions were destroyed. But the Lassallean tendency, strongest during the depression, had much in common with the reform union tendency. It proposed cooperation as a means of making the workingman competitive with capitalists already dominating the marketplace, and it encouraged workers to use their votes within the existing governmental framework to elect those sympathetic to working-class interests.

The constituency of the reform union tendency was primarily skilled Anglo-American workers in the aristocratic trade unions. The tendency was led by the printers of Chicago Typographical Union no. 16 in the General Trades Assembly of the 1860s and the Council of Trades and Labor Unions and the Trades and Labor Assembly of the 1870s and 1880s.

German skilled workers did participate at times in these trades coalitions, and some Germans cooperated with the Anglo-American workers for a while in the 1870s by defining moderate Lassallean politics. But they soon rejected moderate labor reform and defined a revolutionary union tendency. They questioned the basic laws of industrial capitalism in the city and argued that fundamental structural changes were necessary to make the system more just and equitable. The revolutionaries were class conscious, believing they should strive to emancipate the entire working class; they did not believe that they ought to work for benefits within each trade, as the reformers did. Although the revolutionaries acknowledged the possibility of using peaceful means to gain benefits for the working class, they moved increasingly toward the position that a violent revolution would be necessary to achieve the total emancipation of workers.

This tendency can be traced from the cells of the Marxist International of the early 1870s, through the more militant German wing of the Socialist Labor party, the Lehr und Wehr Verein and other armed resistance groups, and finally the anarchist Social Revolutionary clubs and the Central Labor Union. These groups used mass marches, militant strikes, armed resistance militia, and finally proposed the use of dynamite bombs in defense of working-class interests.

A third tendency, mobilized mainly by the unskilled, can also be defined: the mass strike . The unskilled were largely unable to participate in organized labor politics because craft union membership was usually the basis for such politics. The absence of an economic organizational base led the less skilled to resort to noninstitutional means of influence: crowds to intimidate strikebreakers, massive protest rallies by the unemployed to demand public jobs, and the general strike enforced by roving committees in working-class industrial districts.

Anglo-American workers rarely participated in these mass strikes. For example, the July 1877 strike was largely begun by Irish-born railroad workers and then dramatically escalated by other foreign-born workers, including Irish, Bohemian, Polish, and German outdoor laborers in Chicago lumberyards, coal yards, brickyards, and packinghouses. The native-born railroad workers, especially the engineers and conductors, as well as all the city's Anglo-American skilled unions remained aloof, ignoring the strike or arguing against it. Those few skilled unions that did discuss the eight-hour day and higher wages near the end of the strike were German.

One explanation of the mobilization pattern in the Chicago labor movement is that the labor aristocrats in the strongest, highest paid, longest lasting unions were the constituency for the reform tendency; that low-status skilled workers suffering skill degradation, low wages, and high unemployment used their weak unions to mobilize a revolutionary response to industrialization; that the unskilled, without strong unions, participated in mass strikes for higher wages.

But it is not possible to account for the mobilization pattern through an examination of workers' economic position alone. Workers in the same trades, at the same skill levels, facing the same eco-

nomic conditions for the same reasons chose different political paths based on their ethnic origins . The Bohemians and Irish were mostly unskilled. Both engaged often in militant strikes, which were the only possible means of improving the economic position of largely unorganized, unskilled laborers in the city. When they did finally enter organized politics through the creation of unions of unskilled Bohemians and the mobilization of many unskilled Irish in the Knights of Labor, the two groups chose very different political paths. The Irish were reformers, and many of the Bohemians were militant revolutionaries.

Similar political differences arose among Chicago's skilled workers. The split in the cigar makers union between German and Anglo-American workers is a good example. A group of workers in the same trade facing similar working conditions, the same vulnerability to mechanization and sweatshop cigar manufacturing, and similar economic status were unable to join in a common political cause. There was a significant tendency for skilled workers to join either the reformist or the revolutionary tendency based on their ethnicity, with the Anglo-Americans in the reformist faction and the Germans in the revolutionary group. In the 1880s, the German printers, carpenters and joiners, cigar makers, bricklayers and stonemasons, coopers, and painters were all active in the Central Labor Union; the Anglo-Americans in those trades were in the reformist Trades and Labor Assembly.

The rest of the evidence tells the same story. The militant 1873 unemployed marches were led by the International, an organization without an Anglo-American section but with three German, one French, one Scandinavian, and one Polish section. The split between the Marxists and Lassalleans in the 1870s was based partly on ethnicity; the Marxist tendency was overwhelmingly German. Later in the 1870s, the militant strikes by coal heavers, lumber shovers, and brickyard workers led to the development of the mass strike model used in 1877. The most active workers in those strikes were foreign born, especially Irish, German, and Bohemian. In the late 1870s, when the Socialist Labor party militantly called for the nationalization of much of U.S. industry, it was largely German. Most SLP electoral support came from heavily German and Bohemian sections of the city.

The anarchist tendency was the most revolutionary of the pe-

riod, arguing for the total destruction of the capitalist system, the abolition of class rule, the replacement of the economic system by a system of autonomous producer groups, and the elimination of the state. The strength of the Chicago anarchist movement by the mid 1880s was due to the use of strong German and Bohemian community and trade union networks to mobilize the movement.

The ethnic fragmentation in the Chicago labor movement was also obvious during the eight-hour movement, when a split developed between the largely Anglo-American and Irish workers in the Trades and Labor Assembly and the Knights of Labor and the Germans and Bohemians in the Central Labor Union and the Social Revolutionary clubs. The Anglo and Irish reformers wished to gain the eight-hour day as a reform to decrease unemployment and increase leisure time; they were willing to accept pay reductions if necessary to gain their goal. The Germans and Bohemians wished to use the eight-hour agitation to promote total revolution and stuck to the more militant demand of no pay cuts. Both tendencies were strong, mobilizing thousands for marches in support of their demands. The factionalism was resolved only by the use of repressive force against the anarchist movement. Significantly, the repression was accepted, even applauded, by the Anglo-American and Irish reformers. Eliminating the anarchists from the labor scene strengthened reform unionism, which has dominated labor politics from 1886 to the present day.

Chapters 1 and 2 have analyzed the mobilization pattern in the Chicago labor movement during industrialization. The crucial importance of ethnicity in the mobilization of that movement has been documented, but the reasons for the role of ethnic origins have yet to be identified. What about ethnicity made it a factor in determining whether a worker remained inactive or joined revolutionary or reformist movements? The list of possibilities is nearly endless. Was it the economic, cultural, or political background in the country of origin that determined the immigrant's political choice in the Chicago movement? Did those from skilled trade backgrounds tend to become revolutionaries, and those of peasant origins become reformers? Were Germans revolutionaries because they had been socialists and anarchists in Germany?

Was the immigrant's situation in Chicago the key factor? Did ethnic background determine economic position in the Chicago la-

bor market? Perhaps a cultural division of labor was created so that ethnic origin determined economic situation, which in turn determined political choice. Perhaps the reformism of the Anglo-American workers can be explained by their position in the labor aristocracy. Or were noneconomic factors, such as the impact of nativism and the exclusion of ethnic groups from influence in the Chicago polity, also important? Perhaps cultural and language differences simply made it impossible for workers from various ethnic groups to communicate adequately. Employers' divide and conquer strategies might have effectively prevented working-class solidarity. What was the role of ethnic residential segregation in determining political choice in the movement? The next few chapters determine some reasons for the importance of ethnicity as a decisive factor in political mobilization in the labor movement by analyzing the specific political choices of Anglo-American, Irish, and German workers.