In Streets, Railroads, and the Great Strike of 1877, David O. Stowell wrote about the Great Strike in the cities of Buffalo, Albany, and Syracuse. By analyzing these three New York cities Stowell illustrated that the Great Railroad Strike was not merely a united demonstration of industrial laborers against employers. It also involved various urban inhabitants living with the daily dangers and disruptions created by the local rail lines. [A] powerful current of the uprisings consisted of a spontaneous rebellion of urban residents against one of the most direct and damaging ways they experienced capitalist industrialization outside of the workplace, namely, the use of city streets by railroads (1).
The city populace protested for different reasons than the striking laborers, and Stowell highlights these through events leading up to the strike.
City streets were at the center of urban life. Everyone used the streets from the poor to the elite, but the frequency and nature of its use varied among classes, genders, and ages (20). When railroads rapid development engulfed urban centers streets became a hotly contested territory. Various parts of urban society had reasons to protest against the building of rail lines on city streets. Small businesses were afraid that the vital role streets played in local transportation would be compromised. Saloons would lose visible and accessible entrances, while stores would have difficulties unloading and loading goods. In addition to small business concerns, lower class men, women, and children were dependent on the streets for their way of life. Employment, along with the lack of modern plumbing and refrigeration, made the basic necessities of the home reliant on daily use of the streets. Everyday waste was disposed of in the streets. Most urban men would use the streets to walk to work, while housewives would need to buy certain goods daily from local markets. Women and children in particular used the streets to peddle home made commodities and scavenge for various discarded items—coal, metal, wood, etc—that added a small but vital contribution to the home economy. When children were not contributing to the home they would use the streets to play because parks and other recreational grounds were lacking in most inner cities. Stowell compellingly argued that, with the building of rail lines on city streets, urban residents had a vital part of their social and economic lives altered and/or restricted. Railroads increased local traffic while decreasing the overall territory for safe travel to the displeasure of many local residents and businesses.
One could argue that streets were not lost to rail lines but altered. This was in fact true; individuals could use rail lines for foot transportation. Railroad tracks, however, were much deadlier than the average street. The rise in railroad related death and injury created another problem for the urban populace in regards to the establishment of rail lines on city streets. Accidents occurred for a variety of reasons; brake failure, a speeding train, pedestrians walking on the tracks, people jumping onto trains, wagons sitting on tracks, and more. Newspapers, railroad corporations, and state governments all recorded the numerous amounts of railroad related accidents. These included incidents where a train created a “runaway” accident. A “runaway” was a panicked horse whose driver was unable to control its movement. While waiting at train crossings, horses were easy spooked by the noisy engine or ear piercing steam whistle. More often than not the “runaway” resulted in a casualty and/or injury. “The data indicates the 1870s were years in which deaths and injuries steadily increased; most of these death and injuries resulted from railroad use of crowded urban space” (26). This growth of fatalities and mutilation further fueled antagonisms between urban residents and the railroad industry.
Local citizens attempted, with little success, various legal actions to limit the growth of railroads on city streets. These legitimate concerns often fell on deaf ears because of the rampant political corruption in local governments. “Their (railroad corporations) capacity to persuade, cajole, or bribe common councilmen and mayors far surpassed the resources available to neighborhood residents and small property owners” (39). Stowell also states that many of these legal actions against the railroad corporations occurred during the decade of the Great Strike. When the railroad worker went on strike in July of 1877 to protest poor working conditions and continual wage reductions, urban residents joined in the demonstration against the already hated railroad companies. Years of unwanted rail installments, damage to local social and economic ways of life, and the cost in human lives fueled the fires of protest by the urban populace.
Stowell’s depiction of the Great Strike of 1877 has three main characters: the striking industrial laborer, the protesting urban resident, and railroad corporations. Each group had a major role to play during the strike, and they all had different goals. The laborer was looking for improved working conditions, increased wages, and support amongst their fellow worker. At the same time, urban protestors were denouncing the encroachment of rail lines on city streets, and the various affects this had on city life. Stowell argues that the urban residents were not concerned with the extent of damage done to railroad corporations because, unlike the laborers, they were not dependent on them for employment. On Monday 23rd, 1877, striking railroad workers and urban residents ran down a militia train car and set it aflame. Members of the protest wanted to send the burning car down the tracks to Lake Shore roundhouse in hopes of causing more destruction to railroad property. “But striking railroad workers in the crowd would not hear of it, and their strenuous efforts to protect their workplace…somehow carried the day” (105). In contrast to urban residents, crowds of strikers did not cause significant amounts of property damage. They usually concentrated their efforts on recruiting fellow workers to their cause. Throughout the strike laborers went to many of Buffalo’s largest manufacturers to “persuade or coerce workers to stop work and join the strike” (108). Stowell suggests that the coordination involved with these protest illustrated the goals of industrial laborers on strike—not frustrated urban residents. Although the aspirations of urban protestors and striking workers were different their enemy was the same. This common link brought these two groups together, however, as denoted above it might not remain intact during certain situations. In fact many striking workers attempted to distance themselves from protesting urban residents, but as Stowell points out “Railroad workers that may have wished to exclude city residents were in all likelihood simply unable to do so” (114).
The final character in Stowell’s depiction was the railroad corporation. Their goal throughout the Great Strike was to protect corporate property, and ensure the continuation of business—i.e. the running of the railroads. The direct representatives of the railroad corporation during the protests were the local police and militia. In Buffalo, the militia was ineffective initially because of their slow mobilization. This, however, did not delay the police department form subduing the various eruptions during the strike. Throughout the week, police were incarcerating and thrashing assorted protestors while protecting the railroads property. On Thursday 26th, at the Hamburgh Street railroad crossing a train bound for Niagara Falls was stopped and the cars were uncoupled. Soon afterwards police arrived to break up the protest. “The police clubbed many people and made about two dozen arrests” (113). This basic relationship between labor and the law existed throughout the strike.
In their attacks police officials made no distinction between urban residents and laborers on strike. Both were part of the same general demonstration that needed to be stopped. This lack of categorization by the police illustrated their general separation from most city workers and residents. If policemen identified themselves as part of the working class, than they did not show much sympathy to their fellow worker during the Great Strike. They also failed to relate to the grievances of urban residents. Although they did reframe from using firearms, numerous beating and arrests occurred. More likely the police were identified as an extension of the pro-business state and local government. This was the same government that failed to address legal petitions made by local residents and laborers against the railroad corporations. Thus the police may be viewed as a symbol of the railroads power over the local government. They are a militant force used to protect the interests of big business in this case the railroads.
Stowell’s findings discovered the voice of urban residents during the Great Strike of 1877. He successfully proved the existence of a separate group of people that joined with striking workers to protest their frustration at the industrializing railroad. The common enemy, however, was the only significant link between workers and the urban populace. Each group had different motivations and goals for their actions throughout the duration of the strike. In addition, Stowell highlights the position of police during the strike and their relationship with the working class. In Buffalo, the police were nothing more than pawns of railroad corporations used to protect their precious property. They may be separately categorized from urban residents and the working class, as a military force used by the railroads through their power in government. Together these three groups—police, urbanite, and laborer—fashioned the various events of the Great Strike of 1877.
No comments:
Post a Comment