Through a referendum vote, the Socialist Labour party also rescinded its former decision to proceed with the nomination of independent candidates, and decided to send delegates to the convention in Chicago called by the above conference.56 At the convention the socialists had 44 delegates out of 756. The prominent leaders, such as Van Patten, Parsons, Douai, and McGuire were in attendance. Realising that they were too weak numerically to play an important rôle in the convention, they decided to centre their efforts upon the adoption of the following plank: "We declare that land, light, air and water are the free gifts of nature to all mankind, and any law or custom of society that allows any person to monopolise more of these gifts than he has a right to, to the detriment of the rights of others, we earnestly condemn and seek to abolish." 57 Even this colourless plank, which contained nothing specifically socialistic, proved unacceptable to the greenback leaders. Through a skilful use of parliamentary methods they succeeded in preventing a vote upon it until after the platform had been adopted and nominations made. Then it was adopted by a large majority, not, however, as a plank in the platform, for the greenback parliamentarians claimed that nothing could be added to the platform after nominations had been made, but merely as a special resolution of the convention which was "just as good." Notwithstanding this procedure, the socialist delegates met after the convention had adjourned and issued a declaration to the effect that the Socialist Labor party had a right to view with satisfaction the adoption of a radical platform and the nominations of Weaver and Chambers. However, should the national committee of the Greenback party under any pretext go back upon the land resolution, they would still continue to give their support to the greenback candidates, but would openly declare that their resolution had been barred from becoming a part of the platform through parliamentary trickery.58 The New Yorker Volkszeitung 59 likewise expressed full satisfaction with the effected compromise. 56 Chicago Vorbote, Apr. 24, 1880. 57 Labor Review, June, 1880. The Bulletin of the Social Labor Movement appeared under this name from March to June, 1880. 58 Ibid. 59 June 14, 1880. But the delegates and the Volkszeitung voiced the sentiments of only one element in the Socialist Labor party. The trade union faction, which was keeping in the background while negotiations were carried on with the Greenback party, raised a cry of protest when the compromise was completed. Paul Grottkau, in the Vorbote, and Peterson, the editor of the Scandinavian paper, Nye Tid, at once started a passionate agitation for the repudiation of the compromise. The slump in the socialist vote in the autumn election of 1879 in Chicago had finally broken the moral prestige that the political faction enjoyed in that city. Also the disappointment with the outcome in the spring election of 1880 when, in spite of all predictions, the vote failed to rise again, helped to fix a well-settled sentiment against political action. This sentiment was further enforced by the fact that the only alderman who succeeded in getting reelected at the latest election (by a majority of thirty-one votes) was kept out of his seat by the manipulation of a Democratic city council.60 These circumstances prompted the trade union element in the control of the German and Scandinavian subsections to take a firm stand against the greenback compromise which was, of course, supported by the political faction under the leadership of the American section. The latter, still having a majority on its side in the general meeting of the section in the city, retaliated by expelling Grottkau and Peterson from the party. The German and Scandinavian subsections, however, rallied strongly to their support and the factional struggle reached a high pitch. The American subsection then issued a call against its trade unionist opponents, and the conflict was justly described as one between the trade union and political factions of socialism.61 The protest against the compromise was not confined to Chicago. The section in New York had even preceded Chicago in 60 He gained his seat one year later after a jury trial. Chicago Vorbote, Nov. 13, 1880. George A. Schilling said in his "History of the Labor Movement in Chicago, ," in Life of Albert R. Parsons (Par sons, 2d ed.), XXVIII, that this unlawful unseating of the socialist alderman "did more, perhaps, than all the other things combined to destroy the faith of the Socialists in Chicago in the efficiency of the ballot." However, as far as the trade union faction was concerned, the counting out of the socialist candidate merely helped to strengthen an aversion to politics which had existed in a more or less latent form throughout the seventies. Schilling had been, until 1882, a member of the political faction and naturally re flected in his recollections his sentiments at that time. 81 Chicago Torbote, July 17, 1880. voicing their disapproval of the "deal." The delegate from New York, Bachman, at the Chicago convention had instructions to vote against it. The opposition in New York, however, differed substantially from that in Chicago in the manner in which it arrived at the attitude of non-compromise, if not in the attitude itself. In New York the anti-compromise faction did not coincide with the trade union faction. In fact, there, as will be seen, the trade union faction, together with McDonnell, had left the party as early as 1877, so that the line was drawn, not between the trade union and political socialists, but between the moderates on one side and the revolutionaries on the other. The moderates were grouped around the New Yorker Volkszeitung and the revolutionaries were for the most part refugees from the German anti-socialist law of 1878 and those under their influence. As stated above, the trade union socialists in Chicago had started with a general lack of enthusiasm for political action. They consequently felt averse to sacrificing the purity of their movement in exchange for the chimerical political advantage that the greenback compromise would bring. Added to this, though of lesser importance, was a more or less wide-spread revolutionary feeling caused mainly by the fraudulent unseating of the only alderman whom they had elected at the last election, as well as by the still burning memory of the police outrages of 1877, and by the influence of the few refugees from Germany. In New York, on the contrary, the opposition to the greenback compromise was due solely to a revolutionary sentiment. The revolutionaries there regarded trade unionism with the same unfavourable eyes that they cast on Van Patten's practical politics, for they believed that when allowed free rein both would equally lead the labour movement into the perilous channel of opportunism, and that both should, therefore, be reduced to the rank of mere auxiliaries to the social revolutionary agitation. The result of the party referendum on this vexatious question became known in the middle of August. All sections except New York, Lawrence, Massachusetts, New Orleans, and the German and Scandinavian subsections of Chicago, voted as units in favour of the compromise. The membership vote was more evenly divided, the greenback candidates were endorsed by 608 votes against 396, and the platform by 521 votes against 455.62 The Chicago opponents of the greenback compromise were the first to raise the standard of rebellion. They gained control 63 of the local central committee one week after the results of the referendum had been made known, and started an agitation to elect provisionally a new executive committee and a board of control.64 The New York section likewise refused to bow to the decision of the referendum and demanded a new party convention.65 In order to appease the agitation, Van Patten wrote to the presidential candidate, General Weaver, inquiring whether he accepted the land plank. A letter came in from Chambers, the candidate for vice-president, in which absolute assurance was given that the land plank was heartily endorsed by Weaver and himself as well as by every greenbacker.66 But this was hardly sufficient to put a stop to the rebellion. In fact, the New York section immediately passed a resolution declaring that the land plank was not socialistic since it allowed for private property in land, that Van Patten's letter to Weaver was entirely uncalled for, and that, therefore, the socialists ought not to vote for the greenback candidates.67 The outcome of the election was in full accord with the situation. In view of the "good times" the vote for Weaver and Chambers fell from the aggregate congressional vote of over 1,000,000 in 1878 to barely 300,000. The Socialist Labor party was beaten even more badly than the Greenback party. The compromise agreement had only covered the candidates for president and vice-president. All other candidates the socialists nominated independently. But dissensions broke out also over these nominations. In Chicago the anti-compromisers seceded and nominated A. R. Parsons, who had meantime come over to the trade union side, for assemblyman in the sixth disdistrict, against Christian Meier, the regular socialist candidate who was supported by Thomas J. Morgan and George A. Schilling, the leaders of the political compromisers. Meier 62 Ibid., Aug. 21, 1880. 63 Ibid., Sept. 4, 1880. 64 Ibid., Oct. 16, 1880. 65 Ibid., Sept. 11, 1880. 66 New Yorker Volkszeitung, Aug. 25, 67 Bulletin of the Social Labor Movement, September, 1880. The bulletin was resumed in September, 1880, and continued for three more months. received 3,418 votes and Parsons only 495, since many Vorbote socialists refrained from voting.68 Neither was elected. In New York there was only one socialist ticket in the field, put forth by the "political" minority in the section, and it received the normal vote of approximately 3,000. In St. Louis the anticompromise faction, headed by Albert Currlin, seceded from the section with the result that the vote fell off considerably." The election of 1880 brought the political strength of socialism back to the point where it was prior to the political upheaval of 1877. From this election also dates the development of the socialist movement towards pure anarchism in the eastern cities, towards anarchistic trade unionism, or a kind of a "syndicalism," in Chicago and the cities of the Middle West, and towards the new trade unionism of the American Federation of Labor. ANARCHISM AND "SYNDICALISM" The Socialist Labor party emerged from the campaign of 1880 weakened in membership and divided into hostile factions. The German, Bohemian, and Scandinavian subsections, and the radical members in the English-speaking subsection in Chicago, held a meeting immediately after the election, and resolved to issue an address to all sections in the country recommending the election of a new national executive committee. The same meeting laid down a radical plan for future action in which the strongest emphasis was laid upon trade unionism. A permanent union was urged with the workingmen's military organisation, and political action was favoured only in districts where the socialists had a fair chance of being elected.70 Following this, the central committee of the Chicago section issued, in conjunction with the Agitation Committee of the Grand Council of the Armed Organisations, a call 71 to " all revolutionists and armed workingmen's organisations in the country," pointing out the necessity of "getting ready to offer an armed resistance to the invasions by the capitalist class and capitalist legislatures." The English-speaking socialists in Chicago remained loyal to the National Executive Committee. They 68 Chicago Vorbote, Oct. 80, 1880. 69 Bulletin of the Social Labor Movement, October and November, 1880. 70 Chicago Vorbote, Nov. 27, 1880. |