The Rise of Social Christianity in Chicago, Research Paper Example

Pullman Strike

Pullman strike in the United States is the general railroad strike that took place and which severely disrupted the rail traffic in the major towns and the Midwest of the United States between the times of the July and June 1894. It happened to be the first strike in the United States of America history. The attack engaged over 150,000 people and twenty-seven states with their territories and would crush the railway system.Everyone in the rail labour happened to be walking away from their jobs. President Cleveland sent the troops for the first time who would end up killing the American citizens against the commands of the states. The courts at the time would outlook the strike issues passing off omnibus indictment as seen in (Lindsey 1964). The state government’s response to this continued and heightened unrest marked the very first event that an injunction was getting used so as to break the strike. In the midst of this of this crises, the president of united states, president Grover Cleveland and the entire Congress marked the day to be a national holiday, labour day, as one of the conciliatory gesture to the very continued American labour movement (Martin 2014).

The strike and boycott

Regarding the increasing financial reverses, which are related to the very economic depression which began in 1893, the Pullman Palace Car Company. The manufacturer of the railroad cars cut the low wages of the workers by roughly about 25 percent (Benjamin 2016). However, this did not bring into play corresponding reductions in the rents and various charges, in its company in Chicago, where Pullman employs lived. As a result of this, various employees and their families went on a hunger strike. When a section of employees who were to represented other workers tried to air out their views and grievances but the lowly wages they are getting. The poor working conditions as well as a 16 hour workday to the president of the company, George M. Pullman, but he refused to have a meeting with them and instead he ordered them to be fired (Martin 2014). Most employees got fired. Thus there was high unemployment level during that period since most workers had gone on strike. The employees who were representing voted to strike and the then president Pullman workers decide to walk off the job on 1894 may 11 (Schneirov and Richard 1999) As soon as plant empties company representatives and posted signs at all the gates: “the works get closed until further notice.”

At that time of the strike, roughly thirty percent of Pullman’s workforce was getting represented by American Railways Union that had spearheaded a very successful strike against the Great Northern Railway Company the previous year. Even though ARU was not involved in the Pullman’s workers decision to boycott work and strike, the union chief leaders had been in Pullman, and the meeting where the strike vote got taken and undoubtedly the Pullmans workers believed that ARU would support them (Martin 2014). After the ARU came together in Chicago in June for the very first annual convention, the Pullman strike was the main issue on the kind of the delegates (Davies 1974).

A very significant deal of sympathy existed in the state of Chicago and in every place where the Pullman employees were being seen to be common tyrannised by the abusive landlord and employer. The query was on how the ARU members were to refuse and handle Pullman cars and trains with the Pullman cars tell the railroads severed their very own ties with Pullman Company (Benjamin 2016).

On the 22 of June same year, the delegates of American Railway Union passed in their meeting a motion. The motion got to initiate an all-out boycott unless the Pullman’s company agreed to submit the dispute to the arbitration by the end of June as indicated by (Bates 2001). During the consecutive three days, various committees got sent to the Pullmans Company with the high hopes that they will win the concessions which would make boycott unnecessary although they were turned away (Martin 2014).

Crucial to the success of any other boycott which would be able to switch men that had joined the ARU in the enormous numbers. The ARU president by then, Eugene V. Debs. Had predicted that since the switchmen had declined to remove or add the Pullman cars from the trains (Bassett 1997). Then the railroads would send them home and will replace them with other workers who were nonunion and who I n turn were to lead the other union workers to be able to walk out of the solidarity hence bring more trains to a halt (Martin 2014).

This incidence played very well as Debs had predicted. On the same year June, roughly 20000 employees of the company left their jobs, and the railroads were tied up. After the next day, almost 40000 employees had already walked away, and the entire trail traffic was snarled down on all the lanes west of Chicago (Martin 2014). On the third day, the number of those employees who had boycotted the work and roughly 20 lines were tied up and completely stopped. By the end of June, almost 120000 employees on the 29 railroads had left their jobs rather than handle the Pullman cars. The American Railway Union had very few locals in the Deep South or east, but however, the strike seemed to remarkably effective in every place (Benjamin 2016).

The Debs would have been pleased by the very effectiveness of the boycott, that he was also alarmed by the anger expressed by the workers that he had feared could have led to violence. In the first week of the strike, he had sent 4000 telegrams urging ARU locals not to overreact and stay calm as indicated by (Basett 1997).

Later, when the American Railway Union and Debs vigorously advocated for a boycott on trains that happened to be carrying Pullman car, it caused disruption on the rail lines in Detroit which affected about 250,000 workers in the twenty-seven states.The American Federation of Labour AFL and Rail Road Brotherhoods happened to oppose the boycott and also the General managers association (Davies 1974). There was an Average of about 30 people who got killed during the response to the riot. There was a lot of property damage which was about 80,000,000 dollars. The government called for an injunction on Debs, the leaders of boycott and the union commanding them to stop creating destructions on the trains that happened to be carrying cars as indicated in (Warne 1955) article. Since both Debs and the boycott leaders did not listen in to stopping violence, Grover Cleveland who was the president at the time commanded the army into stopping the strike by guarding the trains as indicated in (Cleveland 1904) article. There was violence that broke out in most of the city’s leading to collapsing of the strikes. Despite having Clarence Darrow in his defence team, Debs got convicted due to law violation and got sentenced to prison and therefore what followed after this was the dissolving of the ARU.

Significance of Pullman strike    

The Pullman strike led to the destruction of American Railway Union where very many workers were unemployed at the time which resulted in the economic crisis as indicated by (Papke 1999). The same Pullman strike also led to barring of President Cleveland from becoming the president after elections since most American citizens, as well As workers, were all against his reelection. Therefore the Pullman strike became the symbol of enlightenment for employees and residents leadership in America as indicated in (Davies 1974).

It also led to the formation of trade unions as they created a national movement after the rail workers went to strike hence came up with better and clever tactics to deal with their working issues. It’s due to this situation that led the workers to know their rights and demand their wages properly (Wish 1939).

Another primary significance was also the American labour courts were used to stop the labour union activities which had recently risen among the rail workers (Davies 1974).

The strike also led to class divisions among the workers as well as the lack of communication after the great workers strike in American citizens.

References

Bowman, Matthew. “Union Made: Working People and the Rise of Social Christianity in Chicago. By Heath W. Carter. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. xi+ 277. $29.95 cloth.” Church History 85.02 (2016): 409-411.

Cleveland, Grover. Presidential problems. Best Books on, 1904.

Dubofsky, Melvyn, and Foster Rhea Dulles. Labour in America: A history. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Hall, Murray. “Development of the Labor Movement II SMLR, Rutgers University Spring 2016 Wed 9: 50a. m.-12: 50p. m.” (2016).

Lake, Danielle. “Jane Addams and wicked problems: Putting the pragmatic method to use.” the Pluralist 9.3 (2014): 77-94.

Davies, James Chowning. “The J-curve and power struggle theories of collective violence.” American Sociological Review 39.4 (1974): 607-610.

Levi, Margaret, et al. “Ending a Century of Violent Labor Conflict: A New Perspective on Unionization and the National Labor Relations Act.” (2015).

Papke, David Ray. The Pullman case: The clash of labour and capital in modern America. Univ Pr of Kansas, 1999.

Martin, Lauren. “Sweet Home Chicago.” (2014).

Wittenbrink, Benjamin. “Pullman: the Man, the Town, the Strike.” InFlame Board (2016).

Warne, Colston Estey, ed. The Pullman boycott of 1894: the problem of Federal intervention. Vol. 26. Heath, 1955.

Bassett, Jonathan. “The Pullman strike of 1894.” OAH Magazine of History 11.2 (1997): 34-41.

Bates, Beth Tompkins. Pullman porters and the rise of protest politics in Black America, 1925-1945. Univ of North Carolina Press, 2001.

Lindsey, Almont. The Pullman strike: The story of a unique experiment and a great labour upheaval. Vol. 165. University of Chicago Press, 1964.

Schneirov, Richard, Shelton Stromquist, and Nick Salvatore, eds. The Pullman strike and the crisis of the 1890s: essays on labour and politics. University of Illinois Press, 1999.

Wish, Harvey. “The Pullman Strike: A Study in Industrial Warfare.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1908-1984) (1939): 288-312.