{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"24197417","dateCreated":"1273957843","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/gallaghergblockgroup3.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/24197417"},"dateDigested":1532091118,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Discussion Question #2","description":"    Overall the strikers were successful in showing the government and the public the issues in factories with poor working conditions. They made it clear to everyone how low their wages were and how long their hours were. The strikers were unsuccessful because either government troops or a militia defeated them.  The types of workers were probably men who were working to support their families. They would have wanted more money to feed their families, but at some point they needed to stop revolting in order to keep the job because they also wouldn\u2019t be ale to afford losing a job.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"24197737","body":"Don't read! I posted this on the wrong thing and it's not done!","dateCreated":"1273959288","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"24197407","dateCreated":"1273957813","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/gallaghergblockgroup3.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/24197407"},"dateDigested":1532091118,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Discussion Question #1","description":"    The common threads I see in each of the strikes are the reasons behind why the strike began. All of the workers in each strike wanted fair pay and shorter hours. Each strike turned violent from the rage of the strikers. The government response in each case was to send in troops and to suppress the strike immediately. The commonalities between the workers are the anger and motivation they have to show the companies what they want. But in each case, the strikers are defeated and most of the workers go back to work.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"24197741","body":"Don't read! I posted this on the wrong thing and it's not done!","dateCreated":"1273959303","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"23669697","dateCreated":"1272940855","smartDate":"May 3, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"carolinemallison","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/carolinemallison","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/gallaghergblockgroup3.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/23669697"},"dateDigested":1532091118,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"DQ 3","description":"Examine the government's role in the strikes. Do you agree with the response of the local, state or federal authorities? What involvement should the government have in strikes, if any? Why?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"24192819","body":"The government should have involvement in some strikes.  Strikes which turn to violence and are endangering the safety of the public, require the involvement of government forces.   Strikes which impact such national concerns as the mail system, like that in the Pullman strike; or damage important property and result in huge financial loss, such as that in the Great Railroad Strike, also require the interference of government forces. However, it\u2019s the government forces\u2019 responsibility to prevent and handle violence; when within these strikes they often provoked further violence from the strikers.   A clear example of this is the way in which the Pinkerton Guards dealt with the Homestead strike.  The guards, upon meeting the riot of 3800 workers, greeted the crowd with unnecessary gunfire.  This resulted in the death of many, and not a single guard, of the 300, left uninjured.  The Haymarket strike was similar.  When a bomb went off in police ranks the forces chose to fire on the crowd, instead of securing the area from further violence. This strike resulted in the death of 77.  The government should step in when it is necessary to prevent violence, or damage to large amounts of property; but if strikes are peaceful they should be able to continue without government interference, because that is the right of the workers.  The pro-business government of the late 1800s, did not truly recognize this right unfortunately.","dateCreated":"1273934193","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"kristinaml","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kristinaml","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24197709","body":"    The government\u2019s involvements in the strikes all deal with suppressing the strikes. I agree that they should stop the violence, but I don\u2019t agree with them tuning out the workers. They didn\u2019t even act like they cared why the strikers were revolting in the first place. They officials always seemed to side with the business over the workers. The government\u2019s only role should be to make sure there is no violence and to find a way to let each side of the fight voice their opinion. The government did a bad job of this by sending in troops to basically shut up the strikers. In the Pullman Strike the troops shot people because they were in a panic from the riot and ended up killing 10 people. The government wasn\u2019t even supposed to be getting in the way with business in the first place because of Laissez faire. Once they started, however, they were pro-business. The government should step in to cease the violence, or try to make some sort of an agreement between the businesses and the workers.","dateCreated":"1273959196","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24215641","body":"I think that the government should have some involvement in the strikes but not much. I also believe that the government should only be involved when it turns voilent. I disagree with the police's involvement in the Haymarket Strike. The strike was a peaceful protest and no one was turning violent. The bomb probably would not have been thrown if the police had not shown up. I think the intentions of the govenment are to keep things peaceful but sometimes their presence at all can cause things to escalate. I think the only stike the government had a right to be in was the Pullman strike and that is only because the US mail system was being affected. I also think a lot of these strikes was the governments own fault a little bit. The government took limited steps to regualte these business and did nothing about the worker's rights. The strikes were bound to happen. If the government doesn't want strikes then maybe they should do something to keep the workers happy.","dateCreated":"1274049313","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"emma426","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/emma426","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24220235","body":"I think that the government should not have been involved in the strikes. The economy is suppose to be a Capitalist Laissez Faire system and by involving federal troops this system is not being practiced. The strikers were trying to obtain better working conditions through protest, which is essentially the &quot;invisible hand&quot; of Capitalism. The companies are suppose to listen to their workers and fix the things they complain about because it is good for business. The strikers demands were not being met so they showed how serious they were about their complaints that they damaged company property. This should send a pretty clear message to the owners of the business that something needs to be changed. The owners didn't change anything because they knew federal troops would be call in to fix the problems they could have fixed by improving the workers conditions. The troops and policemen should only have protected the people not involved in the strike and other property not belonging to the company whose workers were on strike. The government was given the power to keep the peace during strikes; however, they abused it and used it to help the companies. They government should not be allowed to interfere with strikes because when they are given said power they will often abuse it in instances such as the Pullman Strike. The government should not have been involved in the strikes because the workers would have had a better chance of getting what they wanted and fewer lives could have been lost.","dateCreated":"1274058040","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"NickCatalan","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NickCatalan","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24221033","body":"I agree with Nick that the government's involvement in the strikes was in the end truly nothing but violent; and abused the power to keep the strikes peaceful, harming the workers. I agree with the intentions of the government to prevent damaged property and further violence; but I agree with Nick that within the strikes these &quot;intentions&quot; were often just cast aside for the pro-business government of the time's larger interest in aiding the companies, and expanding the industries the workers were striking against.","dateCreated":"1274059174","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"kristinaml","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kristinaml","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24221179","body":"I disagree with Nick because I do think the government should have stepped in, just not as much as they did in all of the strikes. I do agree that the companies should have listened to their workers, but they were not going to. All of the businesses had already tried suppressing the workers by the time the government came in. He is right that the message that change needed to be made should have been delivered to the owners, but because the government stepped in, it really wasn't. The government really should be allowed to step in and break up the violence because many people got killed out of spurts of rage during the strikes. Some of those shootings were actually because of the government's own troops, but the government should only be involved in terms of keeping the peace.","dateCreated":"1274059425","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24223949","body":"I agree with Kristina when she says that the government troops often caused a lot more violence, instead of preventing it. She also says that the strikes were broken up by the pro business government. I also agree with Emma's point that the bomb at Haymarket probably wouldn't have been through if the police had not been present. This would have prevented a lot of unnecessary deaths.","dateCreated":"1274064463","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"NickCatalan","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NickCatalan","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24226097","body":"The reasons the government became involved in these strikes is easy to understand, if not very understandable (hopefully this makes sense). Involvement in the strikes of the late 1800 was the natural course of action for the government to take, but not the right one. The owners of the railroad companies and steel companies that these strikes were against were very powerful people. These people used their power, as well as the vast amounts of money they had amassed, to gain influence in the United States government. So naturally, when they called to that government for help during the strikes, they received it. However, the government was making a big mistake when they did this. Government involvement in the strikes is generally what brought them to their breaking points at which they turned into violent riots. Most strikes started out as (admittedly severe) forms of civil disobedience. For example, the Great Railroad strike of 1877 was simply started by a station of railroad workers in Martinsburg, West Virginia refusing to let trains through. Of course, this was obviously disruptive to interstate trade, and caused a fair amount of financial loss, and was illegal and unethical in some cases, but it was non-violent. The non-violent introduction of a stress into society is an essential ingredient in the process of civil disobedience. If the striking workers had been left alone and the strike left to run its course, the Railroad company would likely have been forced to come to an agreement with the workers and the issue would have been resolved. Instead, the government turned a case of civil disobedience into a case of military oppression when it sent in troops to quell the strike. The civil disobedience was interrupted, the process not allowed to be finished, and the dissent of the workers was not allowed to be properly expressed. This oppression transformed the dissent into silent, simmering rage. Strikes erupted into riots only after this type of provocation. The United States government took the easy route, but not the right route, of action in respect to the strikes of the late 1800s.","dateCreated":"1274070133","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"mmcglathery","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mmcglathery","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24226195","body":"I agree with the point that Kristina makes about government troops really being the instigators in many cases. I'd like to add, though, that they didn't just instigate with their gunfire. Their presence was a source of intense resentment for the strikers. This resentment was rightful, too. In many (but not all) cases, workers were moderately peaceful while striking ,simply seeking to improve their lives by negotiating fairer pay with which to support themselves and their families. The fact that the government felt it was necessary to send in troops and either force them back to work or keep them from crossing any lines was insulting to the strikers. Many strikers rightfully thought it unfair for the government to so unquestioningly support the companies, and this sentiment is what led to much of the violence of the strikes.","dateCreated":"1274070578","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"mmcglathery","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mmcglathery","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"23669661","dateCreated":"1272940818","smartDate":"May 3, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"carolinemallison","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/carolinemallison","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/gallaghergblockgroup3.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/23669661"},"dateDigested":1532091119,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"DQ 2","description":"Overall, in what ways were these strikes successful? Unsuccessful? Why? For this question, you might consider what types of workers were on strike and how this impacted the success of the strike.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"24192517","body":"The strikes were largely unsuccessful in terms of immediate improvement of conditions for the striking workers. At the end of the strikes, workers returned to the same conditions.   The workers that struck were at the core of the industries which America was depending upon for innovation and advancement at the time.  The steel industries such as Carnegie steel from the Homestead strike, railroad industries behind the Great Railroad and Pullman strikes, and the McCormick factory which helped to establish the industrial city of Chicago, were all key aspects of American advancement in the late 1800s.  The initial pro-business attitude of the American government was due to the need for the productivity of these industries to continue to remain high and continue to grow; but this was unfortunately at the expense of the worker. The strikes were successful in a long term sense, however. The strikes brought attention to the poor conditions of workers, and though at the time the federal government refused to join the side of labor unions, and the government was pro-business instead of advocating for their workers; the strikes set in motion the labor movement which would eventually change American society for the better in the long term.","dateCreated":"1273932687","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"kristinaml","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kristinaml","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24197635","body":"    Overall the strikers were successful in showing the government and the public the issues in factories with poor working conditions. They made it clear to everyone how low their wages were and how long their hours were. The Pullman striker, in particular, brought labor problems to America\u2019s attention by showing how the company had abused labor to obtain more capital. After a while, the workers\u2019 hard work would pay off. The strikers were unsuccessful because either government troops or a militia defeated them. Once defeated, most workers were forced to return to their low-paying jobs. The types of workers were probably men who couldn\u2019t afford to simply quit but also needed more money. The industry at the time needed these workers, however, to keep things moving. At the time, the strikes were difficult to win.","dateCreated":"1273958856","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24216149","body":"I believe that these strikes were both successful and unsuccessful. All of these strikes got public attention in some form or another, whether is be in news papers, word of mouth, or government reactions. The attention is successful in education the public about how harsh these conditions were. On the other hand I think these strikes were very unsuccessful. The outcome of all of these strikes was that they got smothered but a more powerful force. None of these resulted in the workers getting what they really wanted. These business that were involved with the strikes were so major that the government is obviously going to step in. If they didnt then they would be affected in some way. In a developing country they could not afford major business, like steel factories, being out of work for a while. So overall I would say the strikes were unsuccessful but had some high points.","dateCreated":"1274050641","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"emma426","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/emma426","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24219373","body":"The strikes had both some successes and some failures. They were largely failures in the short term, as the workers had to return to work and the companies they worked for did rectify any of the problems the workers faced. The strike were successful in showing the general public and business owners that the workers were unhappy with their conditions and that they felt strongly about these matters. The strikes also taught lessons to future strikers and showed them what worked and didn't when organizing. The failure to fix the workers conditions resulted in stronger grievances against the company which meant future strikers would be even more passionate. The strikes were largely unsuccessful; however, they paved the way for future strikes to succeed.","dateCreated":"1274056803","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"NickCatalan","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NickCatalan","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24221029","body":"I agree with Nick when he said how the strikers had huge failures in the short term because they all had to go back to work. I also agree that the strikes really showed the public and the government how much this meant to them and how unhappy they were. I also agree with kristina because drawing attention to the poor conditions, the strikers really started the Labor Movement which would also be a long term idea, changing work conditions forever.","dateCreated":"1274059162","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24221545","body":"I agree with Nick that the failures of the strikes were lessons that aided in the success of future strikes, and consequently the eventual success of the labor movement. I also agree with Leah that the workers were really successful in gaining the attention of the public to the labor issues they were facing. In the Haymarket affair, five of the men involved in the strike were sentenced to death, while three were sentenced to life in prison.  Seven years later, the governor of Illinois Peter Altgeld pardoned the three of them, deciding that they had been wrongly jailed, since the strike began with peaceful intentions. The Haymarket affair is a clear example of the success of the strikes in the long term, and the success the workers had in drawing attention to their poor labor conditions.","dateCreated":"1274059992","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"kristinaml","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kristinaml","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24223629","body":"I agree with Leah's idea that the strikes made the public aware of the poor conditions of the workers. She also points out that the strikes would pay off in the long run as more and more people became aware of the workers troubles. I also think Kristina makes a good point when she says that the strikes did not have a large immediate affect for the workers conditions. She also makes a good point when she says the government was more interested in the growth of these companies than the happiness of their workers.","dateCreated":"1274063683","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"NickCatalan","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NickCatalan","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24226481","body":"Looking objectively at the results of each strike, they all look like pretty catastrophic failures. None of the four strikes achieved what they wanted in terms of new legislation or company policy. This is perfectly understandable, as each strike challenged an extremely powerful institution, be it a railroad company, a steel mill, or a plant for harvesting machines. All of the strikes resulted in a considerable amount of death, especially when it is taken into account that these were all civilian conflicts. With each strike, it seems that the government moved more and more firmly onto the side of the industries and further and further away from the side of the workers. What the strikes did not fail to do, though, was to capture the attention, and (in many cases), the sympathy of the American public. Each time a strike rose to national attention and took its place on newsstands, another horrid picture o the life of an industrial worker was painted. In a sense, failing initially helped the labor movement in the long run. By being abused and subdued time after time, workers were clearly established as the victim in the conflict. Even though they had strong support from the start, as is shown from the rapid spread of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the constant denial of workers' attempts to reform unified and strengthened the labor movement.","dateCreated":"1274071803","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"mmcglathery","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mmcglathery","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24226609","body":"I really agree with Nick's point here about the workers learning lessons for future strikes. With each strategy that ended in disaster, unions and strikers were able to build on their techniques. What worked and what didn't work were clearly shown to them. One thing that hey were shown definitely did not work was a chaotic, angry mob. This always ended in military involvement and lots of death. They slowly learned that organization was the best strategy to use when trying to plan a successful strike. This realization that in order to make progress workers must make a well-coordinated, combined effort was one of the more important messages to come out of the labor strikes of the late 1800s.","dateCreated":"1274072261","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"mmcglathery","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mmcglathery","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24229807","body":"I agree with Mike that in each strike the government sided with the businesses more and more. I also agree that by having the stikes (even if they failed) that the workers were getting some benefit, they were getting the word out that they were dealing with horrible conditions. I also agree that being ignored by the government helped to strengthen the movement because they had no choice but to band together. I also agree with Nick that in the short term these were failures but they may have benefitted in the long run.","dateCreated":"1274087508","smartDate":"May 17, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"emma426","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/emma426","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"23669651","dateCreated":"1272940805","smartDate":"May 3, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"carolinemallison","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/carolinemallison","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/gallaghergblockgroup3.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/23669651"},"dateDigested":1532091120,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"DQ 1","description":"What common threads do you see in each of the strikes? How are they similar in terms of reactions of the workers, owners or government response? What commonalities do you see between the workers?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"24192155","body":"<br \/>\nThere is definitely the common thread of why the workers were striking present in all four strikes.  A combination of long work hours, and low pay were always at the heart of why the workers felt striking to be necessary.  The Great Railroad Strike, Haymarket, and Pullman were all specifically in reaction to these problems.  The Homestead strike was a slightly different case.  Homestead was in reaction to Frick refusing to re-hire any employees until the union dissolved, and thus the workers struck; but the union was in place to advocate for the worker\u2019s rights such as fair pay, and decent hours.  When Frick insisted that the union be dissolved, he was endangering these rights; making Homestead yet another strike with the issue of hours and wages at its core.  The owner\u2019s reactions to the strikes were also very similar as well; all turning toward some form of government or local forces to interfere.  The local forces were typically unsuccessful throughout the strikes as well, often requiring larger forces to step in.  This is seen in the Pinkerton Guards being unable to control the Homestead strike, necessitating the use of the Pennsylvania Militia.  The hesitant Pittsburgh local militia was replaced by the National Guard troops in the Great Railroad strike in Pittsburgh as well. The local police ranks in the Haymarket strike weren\u2019t replaced by higher forces, however the local forces were unsuccessful there as well, considering the large death total of 70 men and 7 police men that strike resulted in.  Lastly, in the wide-spread Pullman strike local forces were certainly called in to individual company strikes across the nation; but the strike was not brought to a close until Grover Cleveland sent in Federal troops.","dateCreated":"1273930655","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"kristinaml","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kristinaml","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24197491","body":"    The common threads I see in each of the strikes are the reasons behind why the strike began. All of the workers in each strike wanted fair pay and shorter hours. In the Homestead Act, the workers wanted to stay in the union, but once dissolved, the workers all wanted the same thing; higher wages and shorter hours. Each strike turned violent from the rage of the strikers. The government response in each case was to send in troops and to suppress the strike immediately. The local forces couldn\u2019t get control of the riots in some cases because of the anger and violence of the workers. The commonalities between the workers are the anger and motivation they have to show the companies what they want. But in each case, the strikers are defeated and most of the workers go back to work.","dateCreated":"1273958343","smartDate":"May 15, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24216499","body":"The frame work of each strike apppears to be the same. Huge, powerful companies were running businesses where the workers were unhappy. They were unhappy because they were being treated horrible with long hours and extremely low pay. The workers had no other way to get their message across other than to riot. Each one of these strikes turned violent after their was some sort of government involvement. I personally believe that the government was only sent in to keep the violence to a minimum, but also so they would not be inconvienced. The country was just starting to really expand after the civil war and if major companies that produced steel were to go out of business the government might have had to actually wait or do something to please the workers. But instead of doing the ethical thing and helping the workers they sent in a force to just crush the workers and get things back to normal so they could have what they wanted. Also in each strike you see that the public sides with the workers. Thats because the workers were everyday people like most of the public.","dateCreated":"1274051590","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"emma426","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/emma426","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24217587","body":"The strikes all had common threads in that the workers revolted for the same reasons. In the Pullman, Railroad, and Haymarket strikes the workers were unhappy about lowered wages and long working hours. The Homestead workers went on strike because they would not be allowed to work unless they quit their unions. This would have resulted in a lessened power to negotiate for things such as higher wages and shorter work days, so they were striking for essentially the same reason as everyone else. The owners of the companies all reacted in the same ways. They did not try to fix the problems the workers complained about, but rather attempted to put down the strikes through the use of force. In each case armed troops were sent in to get the workers back to work. The owners all won in the end and the workers went back to work with the same conditions as before. This is also a similarity because none of the workers actually improved their conditions by going on strike.","dateCreated":"1274053928","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"NickCatalan","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NickCatalan","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24219879","body":"I agree with Leah and Emma that the strikes turned violent from the rage of the strikers; but the strikers were also often provoked into violence, or further violence, by the government forces that were sent in to handle the strikes. This is seen in the initially peaceful Homestead strike, which turned violent when the Pinkerton Guards addressed the situation by firing on the crowds.  It's also seen when the Haymarket strike police forces fired on the crowd in reaction to the bomb within their police ranks; creating more violence, and exchange of fire between the crowd and the police.  In Pullman also there was the death of a few soldiers in a small train derailing strike; the soldiers reacted by firing on the strikers. This is yet another example of the violence in the strikes increasing by the actions of those whose job it was to handle the strikes.","dateCreated":"1274057610","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"kristinaml","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kristinaml","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24220807","body":"I agree with Emma that the workers were all unhappy about their long hours and low wages. But I do think that they had other options other than to riot. I'm sure the companies would not have listened to them if they tried to negotiate, but it might have been worth a shot. But I do agree that once the government got involved, everything got way more violent. The government response was always to side with the business or company and to suppress the workers. I also agree with the fact that the public agreed with the workers every time and that it should have meant something to the government that everyone else was on the same page.","dateCreated":"1274058841","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"leahcarroll","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/leahcarroll","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24224359","body":"I agree with Kristina when she says that all the owners reacted in the same way by involving different military groups. She also points out that many of the local military groups were unsuccessful and federal troops often had to be called in. I disagree with Emma when she says that the government had to help the companies so they wouldn't go out of business. The companies could have easily survived if they had simply treated their workers better. They also could have hired different workers. I do not feel like you are interpreting the governments reaction properly.  The government was simply more concerned with the businesses being successful.","dateCreated":"1274065348","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"NickCatalan","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/NickCatalan","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24225115","body":"The issues that the strikes revolved around were remarkably consistent from strike to strike. They all revolved around workers being denied of their incomes, and companies feeling they needed to deny their workers of some portion of their income because of economic hardship or a threat to the company's well-being. The Great Railroad strike was the first strike of this kind, and set a pretty good template to look at all of the other strikes by. After the panic of 1873, many railroad companies cut wages for their workers. The workers generally sullenly accepted the burden, until the issue reached a breaking point. Then the strike began. It gained strength until it erupted into violence, the government got involved, and it was eventually subdued. No legislation favorable for the workers came out of it. Subsequent strikes followed this model with some alterations. Sometimes there was a greater stress on civil disobedience and boycotting (as in the Pullman Strike), and sometimes violence was the central issue (as in the Haymarket Affair). Sometimes the issue that created conflict was not over wages, but over unions, as it was in the Homestead strike. Nevertheless, the strikes were all remarkably similar: workers fought for rights and wages against their employers, and the government eventually stepped in on the side of the employers, providing military support, court decisions, or both, to subdue the strikes.","dateCreated":"1274067099","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"mmcglathery","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mmcglathery","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"24225603","body":"I think Nick makes a really good point about the fact that the cause of the Homestead strike was actually much more similar to the others than it appears to be. At first sight, disputes about wages and the attempted disbanding of unions seem to be different things. But they're actually exactly the same. Even if he wasn't immediately trying to make wage cuts, Frick was really threatening the steadiness of workers' incomes when he tried to break up the unions. Without the negotiating power of unions, workers would have a much more difficult time negotiating their wages, or anything about their working conditions, for that matter. What it all came down to was this battle for power between the workers and the companies: the workers defending their livelihood and well-being, and the companies defending their way of doing business. All four of these major strikes boil down to that conflict.","dateCreated":"1274068290","smartDate":"May 16, 2010","userCreated":{"username":"mmcglathery","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mmcglathery","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}