Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T15:53:34.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Knights of Labor and the Trade Unions, 1878–1886

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Gerald N. Grob
Gerald N. Grob
Affiliation:
Clark University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The year 1886 was destined to be a crucial one in the history of the American labor movement. The eight-hour crusade, the numerous strikes, the Haymarket bomb, the entrance of workingmen into the political arena at the state and national levels, and the mushroom growth of labor organizations all contributed to the agitation and excitement of the year. Yet the importance of these events was overshadowed by a development that was to have such far-reaching implications that it would determine the future of the labor movement for the succeeding half century. That development was the declaration of war by the trade unions against the reform unionism of the Knights of Labour.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1958 , pp. 176 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Laster, IV (11. 15, 1891), 3Google Scholar.

2 For the antitrade unionism of the national leadership of the Knights see the Journal of United Labor, I (06 15, 1880), 21Google Scholar(hereinafter cited as JUL); Labor, Knights of, Proceedings of the General Assembly, 1880, p. 169; 1884, pp. 716–17; 1897, p. 37Google Scholar(hereinafter cited as K. of L., GA Proc); Powderly, Terence V., Thirty Years of Labor: 1859 to 1889 (Columbus: Excelsior Publishing House, 1889), pp. 155–56Google Scholar; Powderly Letter Books, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.; Powderly to James Rogers, Dec. 19, 1892; Grob, Gerald N., “Terence V. Powderly and the Knights of Labor,” Mid-America, XXXIX (01 1957), 41–42Google Scholar.

3 See Ulman, Lloyd, The Rise of the National Trade Union (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955), pp. 348–77Google Scholar.

4 See Wright, Carroll D., “An Historical Sketch of the Knights of Labor,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, I (01 1887), 155Google Scholar; Cigar Makers' Official Journal, XI (06 1886), 6Google Scholar; The Carpenter, VI (02 1886), 4, (Apr. 1886), 4Google Scholar.

5 Norman J. Ware emphasized the importance of conflicting personalities. , Ware, The Labor Movement in the United States, 1860-1895 (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1929), pp. 162–63, et passimGoogle Scholar.

6 See , Wright, “An Historical Sketch Knights of Labor,” p. 146Google Scholar.

7 , Ware, Labor Movement, p. 158Google Scholar. The statistics on trade locals in the Knights are unsatisfactory and misleading, since many of them admitted workers belonging to different trades.

8 K. of L., GA Proc, 01 1879, pp. 69–70, 72; Sept. 1879, pp. 98, 129Google Scholar.

9 Federation of Organized Trades, Proceedings, 1881, pp. 7–9 (1905 reprinting)Google Scholar.

10 K. of L., GA Proc, 1882, pp. 296–98Google Scholar. See also the statement of the General Executive Board in ibid., p. 334.

11 Ibid., pp. 364, 368; 1884, pp.705–7, 776; 1886, pp. 265–66.

12 Ibid., 1885, p. 25.

13 See the JUL, VII (06 25, 1886), 2100Google Scholar; John Swinton's Paper, 09. 6, 1885Google Scholar; K. of L., GA Proc, 1884, pp. 716–17Google Scholar.

14 K. of L, GA Proc, 1883, pp. 438, 443, 502; 1884, p. 787; 1885, pp. 127, 133Google Scholar; JUL, V (12 10, 1884), 856Google Scholar.

15 K. of L., GA Proc, 1882, pp. 325, 347; 1883, pp. 445, 498Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., 1882, pp. 311, 351; 1883, pp. 439–40, 498, 502.

17 Ibid., 1886, pp. 126–27.

18 Ibid., 1883, p. 506; 1884, p. 619. This was also the case in the affiliation of the harness workers. JUL, IV (06 1883), 511; (July 1883), 520–21Google Scholar. The Knights also aided the barbers, horse railway men, miners, railway men, and ax makers in attempts to get them to join.

19 New York Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Report, V (1887), 202–3Google Scholar.

20 Quarterly Report of District Assembly No. 50…July…1886 (Boston, 1886), p. 69Google Scholar For a somewhat similar case see New York Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Report, V (1887), 202–4Google Scholar.

21 K. of L., GA Proc, 1885, pp. 102–3, 140; 1886, p. 130Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., 1883, pp. 467, 508; 1884, p. 617; 1885, pp. 125, 135; 1887, pp. 1714, 1757.

23 Even the successful career of L.A. 300 cannot be attributed to the Knights. It was due primarily to the skilled nature of the trade which permitted the window glass workers to organize thoroughly, restrict output, and regulate apprenticeship requirements. See Davis, Pearce, The Development of the American Glass Industry (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), pp. 126–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Federation of Organized Trades, Proceedings, 1882, pp. 5, 16, 20, 23Google Scholar.

25 For a partial list of trade union leaders belonging to the Knights see The Painter, II (02 1888), 3Google Scholar.

26 See Iron Molders' Journal, XIX (06 30, 1883), 9Google Scholar; XX (June 30, 1884), 10; XXI (Nov. 30, 1885), 14; Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, Proceedings, 1882, p. 955Google Scholar; The Craftsman, II (01 17, 1885), 2, (Aug. 15, 1885), 2Google Scholar.

27 International Typographical Union, Proceedings, 1882, pp. 43, 58, 62, 78, 83, 87Google Scholar.

28 See K. of L., GA Proc, 1882, p. 270Google Scholar; 1884, pp. 707, 787; 1885, pp. 73, 138.

29 Ibid., 1883, pp. 460, 467, 505–6. See also Powderly Letter Books, Powderly to J. P. McDonnell, Sept. 24, 1882.

30 Ohio Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Report, IX (1885), 28Google Scholar; Stimson, Grace H., Rise of the Labor Movement in Los Angeles (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955), p. 45Google Scholar.

31 Differences over wages, hours, and working conditions frequently ensued between trade assemblies and local and national unions, especially since no formal co-ordinating bodies existed. For an example of such a disagreement see K. of L., GA Proc, 1884, pp. 703, 764, 768Google Scholar.

32 Iron Molders International Union, Proceedings, 1882, pp. 15, 54–55Google Scholar.

33 See the National Labor Tribune, 07 7, 1883Google Scholar, cited in Commons, John R., ed., History of Labour in the United States (4 vols: New York: Macmillan Company, 1918–1935), II, 353Google Scholar. “With other trade unionists,” Gompers recalled, “I joined the Knights of Labor for the purpose of confining that organization to theoretical educational work and to see that the Trade Unions were protected from being undermined or disrupted.” Gompers Letter Books, A.F. of L.—C.I.O. Building, Washington, D.C., Gompers to N. E. Mathewson, Oct. 10, 1890.

34 John Swinton's Paper, 04 12, 1885Google Scholar.

35 JUL, II (09-10 1881), 158Google Scholar; John Swinton's Paper, 03 2, 1884Google Scholar.

36 Bricklayers and Masons International Union, Proceedings, 1884, p. 9Google Scholar; Powderly Papers, Henry O. Cole to Powderly, Mar. 9, Apr. 28, 1883.

37 The Carpenter, III (02 1883), 3Google Scholar; International Typographical Union, Proceedings, 1884, p. 12Google Scholar.

38 For typical examples see The Carpenter, III (10 1883), 2; VI (Mar. 1886), 4; VIII (Feb. 15, 1888), IGoogle Scholar; Christie, Robert A., Empire in Wood: A History of the Carpenters' Union (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1956), pp. 50–51;Google ScholarJohn Swinton's Paper, 02 I, 8, 1885Google Scholar; K. of L., GA Proc, 1885, pp. 106, 109, 140Google Scholar.

39 International Typographical Union, Proceedings, 1884, pp. 12, 65–66, 70, 72, 102Google Scholar.

40 See especially , Ware, Labor Movement, pp. 258–79, 285, et passim, andGoogle Scholar, Commons, History of Labour, II, 401–2Google Scholar.

41 lron Molders' Journal, XXII (03 31, 1886), 14Google Scholar; The Craftsman, III (08 7, 1886), 2Google Scholar.

42 Lennon, John B., “Journeymen Tailors,” American Federationist, IX (09 1902), 599Google Scholar; Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, Proceedings, 1886, p. 1793Google Scholar.

43 Haven, NewWorkmen's Advocate, 12 10, 1887Google Scholar.

44 K. of L., GA Proc, 1886 special session, pp. 50–51Google Scholar.

45 Bricklayers and Masons International Union, Proceedings, 1887, pp. 70–75Google Scholar.

46 Iron Molders' Journal, XXII (09 28, 1886), 10, 14, (Apr. 30, 1886), 8, (Aug. 31, 1886), 6; XXIII (Dec. 31, 1886), 7Google Scholar; The Craftsman, III (03 15, 1886), 3Google Scholar; Granite Cutters' Journal, X (04 1886), 3Google Scholar; The Carpenter, VI (05 1886), 2Google Scholar; Cigar Makers' Official Journal, XI (04 1886), 6Google Scholar; Printers' Circular, XXI (06 1886), 66Google Scholar; International Typographical Union, Proceedings, 1886, pp. 90, 93–94;Google ScholarIron Molders International Union, Proceedings, 1886, pp. 16, 25, 31Google Scholar.

47 See The Craftsman, III (02 6, 1886), 2, (Mar. 20, 1886), IGoogle Scholar; The Carpenter, XXIV (12 1904), 5Google Scholar.

48 John Swinton's Paper, 05 21, 1886Google Scholar; Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics, Biennial Report, IV (1886), 160–61Google Scholar.

49 Bricklayers and Masons International Union, Proceedings, 1887, pp. 63–66;Google ScholarThe Carpenter, VI (05 1886), 2, (June 1886), 3Google Scholar; Cigar Makers' Official Journal, XI (06 1886), 7Google Scholar; K. of L., GA Proc, 1886 special session, pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Powderly Letter Books, Powderly to P. J. McGuire and Adolph Strasscr, May 11, 1886.

50 A.F. of L., Proceedings, 1886, p. 16 (1905–06 reprinting)Google Scholar.

51 Cf. , Ware, Labor Movement, p. 284Google Scholar.

52 Perlman has interpreted the conflict between the Knights and unions largely as one between skilled and unskilled workers. , Commons, History of Labour, II, 396–97Google Scholar. Undoubtedly the skilled workers feared the Knights. The Knights, however, was not necessarily an organization of unskilled workers, as the large number of trade assemblies would indicate. While the unions jealously guarded their autonomy and independence, the conflict that developed in 1886 was more than simply a struggle between the skilled and unskilled, although this aspect was an important element.

53 Gompers Letter Books, Gompers to George H. Daggett, Jan. 4, 1896. See also Gompers to Albert C. Stevens, Nov. 1, 1889; Gompers to Frank D. Hamlin, May 6, 1890; Gompers to Charles W. Nelson, Apr. 29, 1892.

54 K. of L., GA Proc., 1886 special session, pp. 53, 55, 67Google Scholar.

55 JUL, VIII (08 20, 1887), 2476Google Scholar; K. of L., GA Proc, 1887, p. 1334Google Scholar; John Swinton's Paper, 07 25, 1886Google Scholar; McCabe, David A., The Standard Rate in American Trade Unions (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1912), pp. 155–56Google Scholar. The glassworkers probably joined the Order in the hope of emulating the success of L.A. 300.

56 Iron Molders' Journal, XXII (02 28, 1886), 10Google Scholar; Cigar Makers' Official Journal, XI (08 1886), 6Google Scholar; Secretary of Internal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Annual Report, XVI (1888), Pt. Ill, Section F, pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

57 The Carpenter, VI (10 1886), IGoogle Scholar.

58 Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, Proceedings, 1886, pp. 1807–08, 1818–19, 1846; 1887, pp. 1959–62;Google ScholarBricklayers and Masons International Union, Proceedings, 1887, pp. 71, 76Google Scholar; Iron Molders International Union, Proceedings, 1886, pp. 17–20Google Scholar.

59 John Swinton's Paper, 06 20, 1886Google Scholar; The Carpenter, VI (10 1886), IGoogle Scholar. See also Locomotive Firemen's Magazine, X (03 1886), 141Google Scholar.

60 K. of L., GA Proc, 1886, pp. 200, 282Google Scholar.

61 See Buchanan, Joseph R., The Story of a Labor Agitator (New York: The Outlook Company, 1903), p. 314Google Scholar.

62 Bricklayers and Masons International Union, Proceedings, 1887, pp. 79–80Google Scholar; A.F. of L., Proceedings, 1886, pp. 13–15Google Scholar. A committee from the Knights was also present at the trade union convention in December 1886 but no agreement was reached. See A.F. of L., Proceedings, 1886, pp. 17–18Google Scholar; K. of L., GA Proc, 1887, pp. 1445–47Google Scholar.

63 The shoemakers, miners, machinists, garmentworkers, carriage and wagonworkers, and potters all seceded from the Knights after 1886 because of their inability to function efficiently within the existing framework of the Order. For evidence on this point see the following: The Luster, I (05 15, 1889), IGoogle Scholar; Shoe Workers' Journal, XI (07 1910), 11Google Scholar; United Mine Workers of America, Proceedings, 1911, I, 581Google Scholar; JUL, VIII (05 19, 1888), IGoogle Scholar; Journal of the International Association of Machinists, VII (07 1895), 238Google Scholar; Garment Worker, III (09 1896), 4Google Scholar; Carriage and Wagon Workers Journal, II (01 I, 1901), 113Google Scholar; United States Industrial Commission, Report of the Industrial Commission (19 vols: Washington, D.C., 1900-1902), XVII, 59, 209Google Scholar; Theodore Glocker, W., The Government of American Trade Unions (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1913), p. 54Google Scholar.