Recent Changes

DQ 2
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.

DQ 2
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.

DQ 2
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.

DQ 3
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.

DQ 3
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.

DQ 1
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.

DQ 1
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.

DQ 1
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.

DQ 3
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.

DQ 2
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.