Left-Wing Political Radicalism in Chicago, 1880-1960

Introduction

The city of Chicago provided a crucial battleground for a national struggle over the meaning of political radicalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The term political radicalism refers to individuals and parties who advocate far-reaching political and social reform. During this period, writers usually applied the term radical to activists and parties on the left side of the political spectrum: socialists, anarchists, and, after 1917, communists. (Leftist radicals were also called Reds, after the color of their party flags – a tradition going back to the flags of the 1871 Paris Commune.) There were significant ideological differences between these parties and each party’s positions changed over time. What united them was a broad rejection of private ownership of the means of production. This resulted in these parties generally promoting the rights of workers against those of the people for whom they worked: the wealthy factory and business owners, known as capitalists. 

From the 1880s through the 1960s, Chicagoans engaged in a passionate debate over how government should respond to left-wing political radicalism. On one side were proponents of civil liberties, the freedoms and rights promised to every member of society by the US Constitution. They argued that political radicals and their organizations were protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly. On the other side were people primarily concerned with security. They wanted to maintain the social order. This group feared the sudden, dramatic change that could happen if the government gave in to the radicals’ demands. They especially feared the government giving in to demands the radicals made while threatening political action like strikes or mass protests. Their biggest fear was the government surrendering to threats of open violence, which they thought would threaten societal collapse. These concerns increased during wartime, because many political radicals, like the workers they claimed to represent, were recent immigrants from northern and eastern Europe. Their opponents often raised alarms about foreign influences in the United States and argued that any radical violence was proof that entire immigrant groups were not suited to live side by side with “old stock” Americans. 

Adding to the complexity of these debates was the difficulty in defining who or what constituted a real threat to the United States. A small number of political radicals engaged in deliberately violent or overtly treasonous activities, such as bombings or espionage. But these people were affiliated with larger movements and parties that included many others committed to reforming, not overthrowing, US government and society. Many radicals sought workplace protections for laborers, African Americans, and women that are now widely accepted. They made important contributions, for example, to movements to prohibit child labor and to enforce an eight-hour workday. The documents that follow represent some of the milestones in Chicago’s history of left-wing political radicalism from the Haymarket Affair of 1886 through the Palmer raids of 1920 into the McCarthy era of the 1950s. 

Please consider the following questions as you review the documents: 

1. What were the goals of the political radicals represented here? How did they try to accomplish those goals? Did their actions increase or weaken public support of their ideals? 
2. What were the goals of the officials and organizations that sought to police or monitor political radicals? What were their methods? Was their treatment of radicals a form of persecution or not? 
3. How do writers throughout these documents define the concepts of freedom, justice, and security? In what ways do these ideals conflict with each other? 
4. Who or what constitutes a threat to the community, the city, or the nation? On what grounds does a person, idea, or group constitute a threat? How should such threats be handled? 
5. How do definitions of and responses to political radicalism evolve from the 1880s through the 1950s? 

Anarchism and the Haymarket Affair

Nineteenth-century employers often expected workers to spend twelve to fourteen hours a day, six days a week on the job. Social reformers called for a reduction in working hours as early as the 1860s, and in the 1880s, anarchists, unionists, socialists, and other reformers organized a national effort to demand an eight-hour workday. These efforts became known as the eight-hour-day movement. During the first week of May 1886, 35,000 Chicago workers walked off their jobs in massive strikes to protest their lengthy work weeks. Some of these strikes involved violent skirmishes with the police. At least two strikers were killed on May 3.  

In response, the next evening, roughly 1,500 people gathered at the West Randolph Street Haymarket, a market on the edge of the city where people bought hay for their horses. The May 4 rally featured fiery speeches from the city’s leading labor leaders and anarchist reformers but was a peaceful gathering. As the rally drew to a close, hundreds of policemen moved in to disperse the crowd. Then, a bomb exploded in the crowd, killing one officer instantly. The police responded with a barrage of bullets. An unknown number of demonstrators were killed or wounded. Sixty police officers were injured and eight eventually died.  

Politicians and the press quickly blamed German-born anarchists for the violence. Although there was no evidence linking specific people to the bomb, eight men were convicted of murder based on their political writings and speeches. Of these eight, five were German-born, and one a child of German immigrants. Four men were executed; one committed suicide. The trial was later considered grossly unjust and, in 1893, the Illinois governor granted absolute pardon to the three remaining imprisoned defendants. The anarchist movement, however, never recovered from the trial. Neither did the German-American community, which found itself under growing suspicion of harboring – if not producing – violent political radicals. This suspicion grew considerably over the following decades.

This cartoon shows German-born anarchist agitator Johann Most. Most was a prominent anarchist, who published a German-language newspaper. He gained considerable infamy for the publication of a leaflet containing instructions on how to build bombs. Most was repeatedly imprisoned for his agitation. He served as inspiration for the stereotypical German anarchist of the time, disheveled, bearded, and fond of bomb making. The cartoon suggests people like Most are incompatible with life in the United States, that he should either be removed from the country – or put to death for his crimes. 

Below are passages and images from a history of the Haymarket Affair written by Captain Michael Schaak. Schaak commanded a Chicago Avenue police station in 1886 and played a large role in the arrests and prosecutions of anarchists following the Haymarket violence. He the published principles and constitutions of several radical parties included in his book, such as the Workingmen’s Party of the United States, excerpted below. He also reproduced Judge Joseph E. Gary’s instructions to the jury, or guidelines on reaching a verdict.  

Michael J. Schaak, Anarchy and Anarchists, 50-52, 453, 578 (1889)

Questions to Consider: 

1. Examine the cartoon lampooning German-American anarchists. What does the cartoon reveal about contemporary sentiment towards these people?  
2. What are the principles and goals of the Workingmen’s Party, as outlined in Schaack’s book? Which, if any, of their goals do you consider reasonable? Which, if any, do you consider unreasonable? 
3. How does the judge instruct the jury to consider the constitutional right to freedom of speech? What are the limitations on this right, according to the judge? 
4. What activities do political radicals appear to engage in, according to the Picnic of the “Reds” illustrations? How do these illustrations represent the ethnicity of political radicals? 

The Impact of World War I on Chicago Politics

The United States’ entry into the Great War also brought the anti-German sentiment in the country to a fever pitch. German Americans had already become broadly suspected of harboring radical leftist sympathies. Paradoxically, they were now also suspected of harboring loyalties for the Kaiser, the United States’ enemy in the war. In combination with open animosities towards German speakers, the laws enacted in the wake of the war put an end to much of German America, in Chicago and the rest of the country.  Many German Americans stopped using their language in public, and the German-American subculture disappeared from the United States. Although the postcard at right was printed in England, it also represents American attitudes during the war.

Meanwhile, labor organizers also drew increased scrutiny from the wartime government. The International Workers of the World (IWW) is a radical labor organization that formed in Chicago in 1905, that still exists today. The IWW, whose members are known as Wobblies, encouraged workers across the country and around the world to unite to take control of economic resources such as factories and land. Like the anarchists involved in the Haymarket Affair, the Wobblies believed that economic resources should not be owned by individuals or private companies but should belong to everyone. The organization urged direct action, such as strikes, rather than participation in the political process through elections. It was one of the first labor organizations to welcome women alongside men. The Wobblies also embraced people of all races and ethnicities.  

“The Garment Workers’ Strike,” The International Socialist Review, 260-264 (1915)

The IWW became the target of federal raids as well as public animosity when the union opposed the United States’ entry into World War I. The following articles portray a 1915 strike by women garment workers and the 1917 federal raids of the IWW’s Chicago offices. In 1917 the US Congress passed the Espionage Act, a law that made it a crime to interfere with military recruitment or operations or to support US enemies during wartime. The following year, the federal government prosecuted over one hundred IWW leaders on the grounds that their antiwar and labor organizing tactics violated the Espionage Act. All were convicted and sentenced to prison. 

IWW statement on a federal raid in The International Socialist Review, 205-209 (1917)

Questions to Consider: 

1. What is the message behind the image “Why do you not teach the child German?” What does it imply about German speaker? Have you ever encountered similar blanket statements about a cultural group? 
2. The image “Why do you not teach the child German” is the front of a postcard. Why do you think this image was printed and sold as a postcard? What does that tell you about popularity of the postcard’s message? Or about the role of postcards as a tool of political messaging in this period?  
3. How does the article on the garment workers’ strike portray the women’s working conditions? What do the strikers hope to achieve? What is their relationship to the police and other authorities? 
4. How does the journal portray the federal raids on the IWW offices? How do the editors encourage IWW members to respond to the raids?   

The First Red Scare

Anxiety about political radicalism and foreign influences further increased in the years following World War I, as American politicians responded to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. This period from 1919-1920 is often called the First Red Scare because of this fear of communist action. Many business leaders and members of the American government blamed communist interference for events that threatened to upset the American social order. They did not entertain the thought that long-standing social issues within the United States could be the underlying causes for these events.  Many of these disruptive events were peaceful labor actions. Some of these actions, however, turned into violent protests against the government. In January 1919, tens of thousands of shipyard workers in Seattle went on strike. Within a week the strike had expanded into a citywide general strike.  Beginning in April 1919, a group of Italian-American anarchists terrorized the nation with a series of letter bombs that killed and injured a small handful of their recipients. On Mayday, May 1, 1919, several cities across the US saw large and peaceful labor demonstrations violently suppressed by police. In June of the same year, the police force itself went on strike in Boston. Later in the year, nationwide strikes impacted both the coal and the steel industries. 

The First Red Scare culminated in coordinated raids of the offices and homes of political radicals, trade union militants, and immigrants. The raids were organized by US Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer and came to be known as the Palmer raids. The Palmer Raids were an effort by the federal government to crack down on the mail bombs and bring those responsible to justice. The raids brought terror to various immigrant communities – but ultimately failed to stop the mail bombings. Palmer repeatedly predicted outrageous, large-scale, organized attacks by communists on the American public. When these predictions failed to materialize, Palmer became subject of national ridicule. This broadside from the Chicago Federation of Labor protests the Palmer raids as acts of terrorism and tyranny designed to suppress workers’ rights and protect big business.

This Chicago Tribune cartoon makes the case that the United States should implement strict immigration restrictions. The figure walking through the gate has a bomb with a lit fuse instead of a head – an allusion to the bombers the Palmer Raids targeted at the time. The cartoon speaks to a wide-spread sentiment at the time, that among those immigrating to the United States were too many so-called “undesirables.” Many Americans believed that the countries of Europe shipped people they did not want in their own nations off to the United States. 

Critics objected that the raids violated civil liberties, the freedoms protected by the US Constitution. But officials defended their actions on the grounds that the radicals posed a real threat to the security of the US government. Twenty members of the Communist Labor Party were among those arrested in January 1920. They were accused of plotting to overthrow the government, but the principal evidence against the men was, simply, their membership in the CLP. The well-known civil liberties attorney Clarence Darrow defended them defended them during their Chicago trial later that year. In the excerpts from his speech below, Darrow defends the importance of free speech no matter the opinions expressed.  

Clarence Darrow, Argument of Clarence Darrow in the Case of the Communist Labor Party in the Criminal Court, Chicago 16-17, 114-115 (1920)

Questions to Consider:

1. Why is the Chicago Federation of Labor (CFL) editorial entitled “Terrorism”? Who are the terrorists according to this writer? 
2. How do the Palmer raids and prosecutions violate civil liberties, according to the CFL editorialist and Clarence Darrow? 
3. How does Darrow define freedom? Why does he believe that the government’s prosecution of the Communists poses a greater threat to the United States than the Communists themselves do? 

Union Organizing and Union Busting

Some owners of private companies feared that labor organizers would harm their businesses. These industrialists went as far as spying on suspected labor organizers to prevent workers from forming unions or joining radical political parties. Following World War II, federal and state governments as well as many private companies adopted a “loyalty-security program.” The program required employees to swear not only that they had never committed treason or espionage, but also that they had never been a member or an associate of the Communist Party. Other oaths required employees to swear that they would not strike or join labor unions. For example, this 1928 oath from the Chicago-based Pullman Company made employees promise not to go on strike and “remain faithful, loyal and true” to the company.  

Across the county, racist sentiments frequently prevented the emergence of a unified labor movement. Racial animosity largely worked against a broader, class-based solidarity among American workers – and industrial leaders knew to exploit these issues to their benefit. While some unions refused to be segregated, others openly refused to represent African American workers. In the American South, unions were often portrayed as a vanguard of communism, and communists in turn were seen as people who sought to upset the Southern racial hierarchies.   

Black workers also formed their own unions, such as the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.  The Chicago-based Pullman Company was a leading manufacturer and operator of passenger coach railroad cars in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The company consistently opposed unionizing efforts on the part of its workers and urged them, instead, to participate in a company-controlled “employee representation plan.” Nevertheless, in the 1920s, Pullman’s African American porters and maids organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (BSCP), under the leadership of A. Philip Randolph. The union fought racial discrimination at the company and demanded treatment and wages equal to those of white employees. The Pullman Company responded by requiring employees to sign loyalty oaths, such as the one mentioned above, and by recruiting informants to report on union activities. The Pullman Company agreed to recognize the union in late 1937. 

The second and third sources in this section document the Brotherhood’s organizing work just before they won recognition from the company. The broadside above advertises a rally by A. Philip Randolph at which the public can “hear the message of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.” The typewritten document below is a summary of the rally and Randolph’s speech written for the Pullman Company by Mrs. M. Butler.  

Mrs. M. Bulter, “Notes on the Meeting of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters,” (May 9, 1937)

Questions to Consider: 

1. What do the porters promise by signing this oath? Why do you think a porter would agree to sign it? What might be the costs or benefits to an employee of signing the oath? What do you think the company hoped to accomplish by asking porters to sign the oath? 
2. Randolph and the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters had no ties to the Communist Party. Why do you think the porters were asked to renounce “Russian socialism” as well as the BSCP? 
3. What does Mrs. M. Butler witness at the labor rally? Why do you think she was willing to serve as an informant? 
4. Why do you think the company went to such lengths to prevent the union from forming? What kind of threat, if any, do you think the workers’ activities posed to the company? 

The Second Red Scare

The two books in this section represent examples of post-World War II anticommunist thought. This period of the early Cold War, extending from 1946 into the 1960s, is known as the Second Red Scare. We know now that Soviet espionage did occur in the United States during the Cold War. However, many prominent Cold War anticommunists, such as Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy and members of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) he led, did not limit their investigations to evidence of treason or spying. They singled out people simply for membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party. Americans from a variety of professions and trades were investigated and pressured to provide names of others who would become targets of investigation.  

Men and women suspected of “homosexual tendencies” also came under McCarthy’s scrutiny. HUAC pressured the federal government to oust anyone suspected of being a homosexual. Many anti-communist crusaders believed that homosexual men were drawn to communism and naturally opposed the American way of life, because they assumed that anyone who was “sexually deviant” would also deviate from social norms.  They also thought that because homosexuality was socially stigmatizing, homosexual government employees would be at risk of being blackmailed. This, they believed, made homosexuals working for the federal government a blatant national security risk. As a result of these ideas, President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450 in 1953. The order barred homosexuals from working for the federal government and resulted in the dismissal of about 5,000 federal employees. In many cases, their firings forcibly outed these men as well. 

The books excerpted here offer ways of detecting Communists in the United States. Karl Baarslag had served as chairman of the Radio Officers Union in the American Federation of Labor (AFL) in 1931. His frustration in that position prompted him to write this advice manual on how to identify and counteract Communist influences in American labor unions. Anthony Trawick Bouscaren was a Wisconsin political science professor who specialized in United States-Soviet relations. He opened this guidebook with a 1956 quote from J. Edgar Hoover, warning that “the threat of Communist tyranny has not been lessened.” Bouscaren urged readers to “Know the enemy, then attack him.” 

Anthony Trawick Bouscaren, A Guide to Anti-Communist Action, 178-182 (1958)

Questions to Consider:

1. What methods do Baarslag and Bouscaren suggest for identifying Communists? What beliefs do they associate with Communism? 
2. Do you think these guidelines would have been useful in finding hidden members of the Communist Party? Are the behaviors and speech patterns described by the authors necessarily indicators of disloyalty to the United States? 
3. The anticommunist rhetoric and tactics used by McCarthy and others have been widely renounced in recent decades as unjust. However, during the second Red Scare, many Americans accepted them. Why do you think that the kind of advice Baarslag and Bouscaren provided seemed compelling to many people at the time? 

The Haymarket Affair and Anti-German Sentiment

These sources depict immigrants and anarchists, particularly German and German-American political activists, as violent threats to the United States.

The Impact of World War I on Chicago Politics

The First World War increased distrust of immigrant communities and labor organization. The postcard below reflects common anti-German sentiment, while the two articles show wartime labor organizing and federal retaliation.

The First Red Scare

The First Red Scare swept the United States at the end of the First World War. These sources show fear of communism was related to anti-immigrant sentiment and how labor organizations and political leaders protested government censorship.

The Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters

The Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, one of the largest African-American unions in the United States, faced intense anti-union pressure from the Pullman company in the 1920s and 1930s. At right is a loyalty oath some Pullman employees were pressured to sign. The second two documents give different perspectives on a 1937 rally: a poster by the union and notes by a company informant.

The Second Red Scare

These books from the Second Red Scare offer advice on how to supposedly “detect” communist organizers in the United States, including in labor unions.

Related Lessons