Working-Class Poverty and the Southern Colorado Coal Strike

In the first half of the 19th Century the working class in the newly industrializing American society suffered many forms of exploitation. The working class of the mid-nineteenth century, with constant oppression by the capitalist and by the division between class, race, and ethnicity, made it difficult to form solidarity. After years of oppression and exploitation by the ruling class, the working class struck back and briefly paralyzed American commerce. The strike, which only lasted a few weeks, was the spark needed to ignite a national revolt by the working class with the most violent labor upheavals of the century.

In his book, “Killing for Coal: America’s Deadliest Labor War”, Thomas G. Andrews construes the trajectory of a unique labor movement of the southern Colorado coal workers. The labor movement is unique as it integrates the social, ecological and industrial context of the strike for a captivating narration of the Ludlow massacre. Andrew’s account is valuable as he insists that credible conclusions must be grounded in complete and sophisticated provenance as opposed to oversimplified explanations. The intent of this response paper is to analyze the burdensome nature of obtaining coal, substandard pay and the treacherous working conditions. Secondly, the paper discusses the ways which helped employees to achieve autonomy and solidarity.

Life in the early 1900’s wasn’t easy. Competition for jobs was at an all time high, especially in New York City. Immigrants were flooding in and needed to find work fast, even if that meant in the hot, overcrowded conditions of garment factories. Conditions were horrid and disaster was inevitable, and disaster did strike in March, 1911. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York set on fire, killing 146 workers. This is an important event in US history because it helped accomplish the tasks unions and strikes had tried to accomplish years earlier, It improved working conditions in factories nationwide and set new safety laws and regulations so that nothing as catastrophic would happen again. The workplace struggles became public after

In the late 1800s and the early 1900s, labor was anything but easy. Factory workers faced long hours, low pay, high unemployment fears, and poor working conditions during this time. Life today is much easier in comparison to the late 1800s. Americans have shorter days, bigger pay and easier working conditions. Not comparable to how life is today, many riots sparked, and citizens began to fight for equal treatment. Along with other important events, the Haymarket Riot, the Pullman Strike, and the Homestead strike all play a vital role in illustrating labor’s struggle to gain fair and equitable treatment during the late 1800s and early 1900s.

The Amalgamated finally called for a strike when Frick announced another wage cut and gave the union two days to accept it. In response to the strike, Frick shit down the plant and called in guards from the Pinkerton Detective Agency (well-known strikebreakers) to enable the company to hire nonunion workers. The mere presence of the hated Pinkertons was enough to incite the workers to violence. As the Pinkertons approached the Homestead plant by river, strikers prepared for them by pouring oil on the water and setting it on fire and meeting the guards at the docks with guns and dynamite. The Pinkertons surrendered after several hours of pitched battle that left three guards and ten strikers dead, but the workers' victory was temporary. 8,000 National Guard troops were called in to protect the strikebreakers and production in the plant resumed. Public opinion turned completely against the strikers when a radical attempted to assassinate Frick. Defeated, strikers slowly drifted back to their jobs until Amalgamated had no choice but to surrender. Amalgamated membership shrank from 24,000 to 7,000, a decline symbolic of the general erosion of union strength as factory laborers became increasingly unskilled, and so increasingly easy to replace.

After the civil war, up until the early 1900s, the need for a larger workforce grew as industrialization expanded. Samuel Slater brought the industrial revolution from England, and even since then, there were people trying to get better working conditions. Due to the growth in population by immigrants and expansion of industrialization, the working conditions became worse and worse, causing workers to suffer. Many people fought to solve this problem and changed many American’s lives for the better.

In the period immediately following World War I, American workers struggled to earn a living as prices rose and wages stagnated, forcing them to seek union support. Labor unions endeavored to represent the working class against their employers and corporations, who refused to increase wages or improve working conditions. In order to combat the capitalist’s immense political clout, unions made their voice heard through strikes. After the war, capitalists linked unions to the mounting communist threat, stressing that strikes undermined capitalism and threatened a republican form of government. As a result, government sided with capital against labor unions and the struggle of the American workers, who had no voice against corporations. This struggle can be exemplified in a correspondence between union leader, Samuel Gompers and bishop William Quayle, published in “The Twenties in Contemporary Commentary: Labor & Capital”. The letters demonstrate that in the 1920’s, labor unions were necessary as a means to overcome capitalist greed and enhanced the ideals of democracy by empowering the working class.

Kracha portrays the two distinct classes in America as “it’s run just like any other country. In Europe your emperors and grand dukes own everything and over here it’s your millionaires and your trust” (Bell 66). Specifically, the May Day Strike where the working class rose against the owners in order to receive eight hour work days on May 1, 1886, where numerous workers left business all over the nation. Unfortunately, on May 3. 1886 violence broke out against the strikers and the police resulting in two strikers killed and many wounded. Violence also occurred in the Homestead strike resulting in “ten men were dead, seven of them steelworkers, and sixty wounded” (Bell 42). These protests by working men for their rights ultimately always ended in violence were the government had to break up the

The mill workers felt that they simply did not have any other options and feared the punitive steps management would take if they unionized. Indeed, this appeared to be the case. When several employees expressed a tentative interest in the union, management reduced their work days, and, consequently, their pay. The mill’s management used many other scare tactics to try and persuade employees to reject the union.

Between the years 1870-1900, Americans began to respond to the effects fostered by these corporations. From urban factory workers to rural farmers, Americans began to organize against these big businesses. With mass industrialization, more job’s were made available to women, these jobs were often in factories with terrible conditions, sweatshops. There was a sameness about working in mass production factories. Thus, working in these modern mass production factories created a homogenous environment that diminished individualism and the need for skilled workers. (Doc. C) Strikers were common during this era, workers participated in strikes and joined labor unions, such as The American Federation of Labor and the Knights of Labor, due to the terrible working conditions. The American Federation of Labor, headed by Samuel Gompers, was specifically for skilled workers and argued for better wages and a reduction in working hours. (Doc. G) Although urban workers were greatly impacted by the growth of these corporations, they were not the ones. Farmers, suffered

Eventually, the workers of American Coal, who were once the landowners of the very area they were mining, formed a labor union to fight for better working conditions. The union was met with great opposition by the company’s secret police. As time went on, the coal miners continued to fight for their rights, only to be put down violently by the coal company’s strikebreakers. Union leaders were also fired and blacklisted from the company as a means to put a stop to union activity.

Despite being able to cause a small improvement in workers’ pay and hours, labor unions ultimately died out by the 1900s due to their methods. Unable to truly focus on the plight of skilled workers, most labor unions instead focused on that of unskilled workers, pushing aside the skilled workers. (Doc D). The actions of labor unions ended up being counterproductive, forcing companies to wage war against the labor unions. These stricter contracts such as that of Western Union Telegraph Company, forced workers to affiliate themselves against labor unions. (Doc E) One important thing to note is that the workers’ rights advocates were never able to coincide on one factor. As evidenced in an illustration in 1887, labor unions had to compete with other movements such as socialism, anarchism, and other labor unions. (Doc F). Because of this, the media, although recognizing the labor union movement, began viewing the labor unions as dangerous entities. Although the initial strikes such as the Wabash strike were successful, the ones that followed proved detrimental to the movement, and caused the steady decline of the labor unions. Because some of the strikes were dangerous, many strikes resulted in the deaths of those involved, such as the Homestead Crisis, and Pinkerton (Doc G). Combined with events such as the Wildcat strike, Haymarket strike, the Pullman Strike, the public began to associate a negative

They were slowly becoming displaced from work and strikes were beginning to form. These miners were going on strikes because of wage cuts and poor working conditions that they were being required to work with (Hard Times: 1920 – 1940). People all over Colorado were suffering; in Pueblo, Texas Creek, Westcliffe, and many more places. Mines were closing due to lack of production and money. Even railroads that were once operated daily by numerous people were being shut down and taken apart. Colorado was not flourishing in the 1920s.

This onslaught of capitalism directly revolutionized modern industrialism as well as the industrial city. Machines morphed the predominately agricultural nation to a herd of factory and corporate workers. Swarms of people, both native and immigrant, flocked to major cities. “The present century has been marked by a prodigious increase in wealth-producing power. The utilization of steam and electricity, the introduction of improved processes and labor saving machinery, the greater subdivision and grander scale of production, the wonderful facilitation of exchanges, have multiplied enormously the effectiveness of labor.”(George, p.20) The major problem with this newfound industrialism was the way in which the workforce was treated. Capitalism was supposed to provide a way out, a way ascend the financial and social staircase, if you worked hard enough. This however was not the case, if you were a loyal, hardworking employee you simply got to keep your job, and if you were in any way injured or incompetent you were fired.

The Ludlow Massacre of 1914 is one of the bloodiest strike in the American labor history. Historians have debated whether the event was a massacre of innocent lives caused by the Colorado Fuel & Iron (CF&I) or as a battle between the company workers and the company militiamen. The CF&I stated that the event was an act of its workers to demilitarize the company and to prevent importation of “strikebreakers”. However, Thomas Andrews’ Killing for Coal: America’s Deadliest Labor War introduces the concept of workscape in which gives an understanding of the event internally, above the surface and underground the mines of Colorado. Within the book, the operation of Colorado coal companies in capitalizing the coal industry lead to the formation of the mine workscape in which united coal miners underground the mines and above the surface to fight for industrial and political rights. This paper would define the concept of workscape in the definition given by Andrews, and provide evidence of the responsibility of the exploitation of capitalism in forming the mine workscape in the Colorado coal fields between the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Furthermore, the closer inspection of several events that occurred within and outside the grounds of the Colorado coal fields related to labor unrest with the knowledge of the concept of workscape will help understand the culmination of the Ludlow massacre within the larger history of capitalism. A careful investigation of the book and other