The Fire Never Dies: Labor's Star Ascendant
- Thread starter Meshakhad
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iww socialist america
10. Southern Socialism
…While the IWW trumpeted victories like in Pensacola, for the most part the South remained largely hostile to socialism. Racism ran deep in the South, so deep that racial identities continually overrode any sense of class consciousness. Southern whites, while no more favorably inclined to the bosses than their Yankee counterparts, were also strongly protective of their status above the black man, and the IWW’s insistence on racial equality regularly turned them away. The fact that blacks were frequently used as strikebreakers did not help in the least…
…Organizing among black workers was at least as hard, if for different reasons. First of all, most IWW organizers were white, and many black workers were skeptical of some white man coming down from the North telling them how to organize. And if they did organize, they were often ruthlessly crushed…
…There were some bright spots. Not all Southern whites feared that blacks could take their jobs. For some, such as teachers, they would be barred from doing so. The IWW began organizing among these professions, leaving racial politics aside for the moment. As such, a high percentage of IWW members from the South were in skilled labor of one kind or another…
…Louisiana proved the Southern state most amenable to socialism. Perhaps due to the history of Creoles, who were often much wealthier than most blacks, organizing across racial lines proved easier. In 1910, Arthur Lee Emerson and Jay Smith organized the Brotherhood of Timber Workers at sawmills in Louisiana and East Texas, affiliated with the IWW and open to all races, as well as women[1]…
…And if getting the message to blacks was not easy, once they listened, they were usually very sympathetic. The IWW was hardly a stranger to state or corporate violence, after all. Effectively barred from the electoral approach of the SLP, black socialists became increasingly radicalized. There was little point in striking when all that would happen is getting beaten to a pulp. Instead, they waited. They spread the word of socialism. They formed mutual aid networks, typically invisible to outsiders. And where they could, they began to create little caches of arms, awaiting the revolution…
- From One Big Idea: The Industrial Workers of the World Before the Revolution by Condoleeza Rice
[1] IOTL, except they didn’t affiliate with the IWW until 1912. ITTL, they do so pretty much right away.
…Organizing among black workers was at least as hard, if for different reasons. First of all, most IWW organizers were white, and many black workers were skeptical of some white man coming down from the North telling them how to organize. And if they did organize, they were often ruthlessly crushed…
…There were some bright spots. Not all Southern whites feared that blacks could take their jobs. For some, such as teachers, they would be barred from doing so. The IWW began organizing among these professions, leaving racial politics aside for the moment. As such, a high percentage of IWW members from the South were in skilled labor of one kind or another…
…Louisiana proved the Southern state most amenable to socialism. Perhaps due to the history of Creoles, who were often much wealthier than most blacks, organizing across racial lines proved easier. In 1910, Arthur Lee Emerson and Jay Smith organized the Brotherhood of Timber Workers at sawmills in Louisiana and East Texas, affiliated with the IWW and open to all races, as well as women[1]…
…And if getting the message to blacks was not easy, once they listened, they were usually very sympathetic. The IWW was hardly a stranger to state or corporate violence, after all. Effectively barred from the electoral approach of the SLP, black socialists became increasingly radicalized. There was little point in striking when all that would happen is getting beaten to a pulp. Instead, they waited. They spread the word of socialism. They formed mutual aid networks, typically invisible to outsiders. And where they could, they began to create little caches of arms, awaiting the revolution…
- From One Big Idea: The Industrial Workers of the World Before the Revolution by Condoleeza Rice
[1] IOTL, except they didn’t affiliate with the IWW until 1912. ITTL, they do so pretty much right away.
Last edited:
I always appreciate a good Socialist America TL. This one’s off to a solid start. Keep up the good work!
11. The 1910 Elections
…Many people across the country, both sympathetic and opposed to the SLP, had been stunned by their successes in 1908. For the first time, they had sent representatives to Congress, as well as gaining representation in numerous state legislatures. The question was, would 1908 be an outlier? Or was this the beginning of a serious challenge to the two-party system…
…There being no Presidential election, Daniel DeLeon strongly pressured Eugene Debs to run for office. After some consideration, it was decided that Debs would run for the 9th District in Illinois, which included much of Chicago[1]. Due to opposition by local business interests, Republican Henry S. Boutell would not be seeking reelection[2]. Debs capitalized on this, along with his superior name recognition, winning a slim majority…
…He would not be alone. The new class of the House of Representatives included William Trautmann (S-PA), Joseph Ettor (S-NY), Charles Moyer (S-CO), and William Z. Foster (S-WA). Perhaps the biggest sensation was Vincent St. John (S-NV), former mayor of Goldfields. As Nevada still only had one at-large representative, it was the first state to send an all-Socialist delegation to the House. To nobody’s surprise, Debs became House Minority Leader for the SLP, with Victor Berger (S-WI) as Minority Whip…
…The SLP also made gains in state and local offices. In Wisconsin’s gubernatorial election, William A. Jacobs came in second, pulling ahead of Democrat Adolph J. Schmitz[3]. In 1911, twenty-seven states had at least one Socialist in their state legislature (although none had SLP majorities). The SLP held the mayorships of several small towns… and two big ones.
In October of 1910, Seattle suffragist Adela Parker circulated a petition to recall Seattle mayor Hiram Gill, who had reinstated the corrupt Charles “Wappy” Wappenstein as chief of police. The SLP and IWW enthusiastically supported the petition, and America’s first mayoral recall election was held in February 1911. The SLP, naturally, was expected to field a candidate. However, the most prominent local socialist, William Foster, had just been elected to Congress. Labor activist Hulet Wells[4] was considered, until William “Big Bill” Haywood moved to Seattle. He had been planning to do so earlier that year in order to run for Congress alongside Foster, but an illness had delayed the move. Now, he became the obvious candidate. Drawing on the surge in socialist sympathies among Washington’s re-enfranchised female voters[5], Haywood won[6]. Seattle became the second major American city after Milwaukee to elect a Socialist mayor[7]. Those who had hoped that 1908 would be a flash in the pan were sorely disappointed…
- From Socialists of America Unite! A History of the Socialist Labor Party by Aaron Sorkin
[1] I’ve not been able to find a map of Illinois congressional districts in 1910. The 9th is one of the ones that was definitely in Chicago, but I’m unsure of which parts.
[2] OTL.
[3] IOTL, he came in third, albeit with an impressive 12.38% of the vote.
[4] IOTL he won second place in the recall election.
[5] Washington had initially given women the vote in 1883, only for the Territorial Supreme Court to overturn it in 1887.
[6] IOTL, real estate magnate George Dilling won.
[7] Milwaukee elected Emil Seidel both IOTL and ITTL.
…There being no Presidential election, Daniel DeLeon strongly pressured Eugene Debs to run for office. After some consideration, it was decided that Debs would run for the 9th District in Illinois, which included much of Chicago[1]. Due to opposition by local business interests, Republican Henry S. Boutell would not be seeking reelection[2]. Debs capitalized on this, along with his superior name recognition, winning a slim majority…
…He would not be alone. The new class of the House of Representatives included William Trautmann (S-PA), Joseph Ettor (S-NY), Charles Moyer (S-CO), and William Z. Foster (S-WA). Perhaps the biggest sensation was Vincent St. John (S-NV), former mayor of Goldfields. As Nevada still only had one at-large representative, it was the first state to send an all-Socialist delegation to the House. To nobody’s surprise, Debs became House Minority Leader for the SLP, with Victor Berger (S-WI) as Minority Whip…
…The SLP also made gains in state and local offices. In Wisconsin’s gubernatorial election, William A. Jacobs came in second, pulling ahead of Democrat Adolph J. Schmitz[3]. In 1911, twenty-seven states had at least one Socialist in their state legislature (although none had SLP majorities). The SLP held the mayorships of several small towns… and two big ones.
In October of 1910, Seattle suffragist Adela Parker circulated a petition to recall Seattle mayor Hiram Gill, who had reinstated the corrupt Charles “Wappy” Wappenstein as chief of police. The SLP and IWW enthusiastically supported the petition, and America’s first mayoral recall election was held in February 1911. The SLP, naturally, was expected to field a candidate. However, the most prominent local socialist, William Foster, had just been elected to Congress. Labor activist Hulet Wells[4] was considered, until William “Big Bill” Haywood moved to Seattle. He had been planning to do so earlier that year in order to run for Congress alongside Foster, but an illness had delayed the move. Now, he became the obvious candidate. Drawing on the surge in socialist sympathies among Washington’s re-enfranchised female voters[5], Haywood won[6]. Seattle became the second major American city after Milwaukee to elect a Socialist mayor[7]. Those who had hoped that 1908 would be a flash in the pan were sorely disappointed…
- From Socialists of America Unite! A History of the Socialist Labor Party by Aaron Sorkin
[1] I’ve not been able to find a map of Illinois congressional districts in 1910. The 9th is one of the ones that was definitely in Chicago, but I’m unsure of which parts.
[2] OTL.
[3] IOTL, he came in third, albeit with an impressive 12.38% of the vote.
[4] IOTL he won second place in the recall election.
[5] Washington had initially given women the vote in 1883, only for the Territorial Supreme Court to overturn it in 1887.
[6] IOTL, real estate magnate George Dilling won.
[7] Milwaukee elected Emil Seidel both IOTL and ITTL.
Last edited:
dentista campora
Banned
This is very interesting
@PyroTheFox you have competitio...wait, we socialists build eachother up, instead!
@PyroTheFox you have competitio...wait, we socialists build eachother up, instead!
Suffice it to say that I will be taking this TL in a different direction from where @PyroTheFox is going.This is very interesting
@PyroTheFox you have competitio...wait, we socialists build eachother up, instead!
12. The 62nd Congress
…In all honesty, the appearance of the Socialists as a serious third party was more smoke than fire. The Democrats had seized a comfortable majority of 225 seats to the Republicans’ 157 and the Socialists’ 8[1]. Both the Democrats and Republicans had lost seats to the Socialists[2], and they had drawn enough votes that a few elections might have gone the other way without the SLP surge[3]. The SLP was also perceived as being much more united and would indeed vote as a bloc. But they remained a tiny party, and few votes were likely to be close enough for them to make a difference…
…Figures in both major parties now viewed the Socialists as a threat. The Republicans were particularly concerned about the West, where they had largely been dominant. Northern Democrats, meanwhile, feared that their immigrant voter base would be slipping away. This was accelerated by the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which spelled the beginning of the end for Tammany Hall[4]…
…The culmination of this fear came in the battle over the direct election of senators. The pressure for senators to be elected directly had been building for years. But the SLP surge of 1910 – particularly Vincent St. Johns winning Nevada’s at-large House seat – led many to fear that allowing direct election of senators would see the SLP break into the Senate…
…In 1911, the House of Representatives passed Joint Resolution 39, calling for a constitutional amendment requiring the direct election of senators. This proved to be one of the few times where the SLP had an impact, as they successfully fought against the inclusion of a “race rider” that would have given states control over how senators were elected[5]. While a majority of senators did vote in favor, enough were opposed that it failed to reach the two-thirds majority. This provoked widespread public anger, and several more proposals for the direct election of Senators would be introduced over the next few years, but none succeeded[6]…
- From Socialists of America Unite! A History of the Socialist Labor Party by Aaron Sorkin
[1] IOTL, the 62nd Congress had 228 Democrats, 161 Republicans, and one Socialist (Victor Berger, who is now in his second term ITTL).
[2]Eugene Debs, Meyer London, Joe Ettor, and Charles Moyer took seats held IOTL by Democrats, while William Z. Foster, William Trautmann, and Vincent St. Johns took seats held IOTL by Republicans.
[3]One of the seats in Pennsylvania that would have gone Republican IOTL went Democratic thanks to the SLP.
[4] More on that later…
[5] IOTL, the race rider was included in the initial resolution. The Senate instead passed their own resolution that didn’t include the race rider, which the House passed a year later.
[6] This means that the Seventeenth Amendment is never passed ITTL.
…Figures in both major parties now viewed the Socialists as a threat. The Republicans were particularly concerned about the West, where they had largely been dominant. Northern Democrats, meanwhile, feared that their immigrant voter base would be slipping away. This was accelerated by the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which spelled the beginning of the end for Tammany Hall[4]…
…The culmination of this fear came in the battle over the direct election of senators. The pressure for senators to be elected directly had been building for years. But the SLP surge of 1910 – particularly Vincent St. Johns winning Nevada’s at-large House seat – led many to fear that allowing direct election of senators would see the SLP break into the Senate…
…In 1911, the House of Representatives passed Joint Resolution 39, calling for a constitutional amendment requiring the direct election of senators. This proved to be one of the few times where the SLP had an impact, as they successfully fought against the inclusion of a “race rider” that would have given states control over how senators were elected[5]. While a majority of senators did vote in favor, enough were opposed that it failed to reach the two-thirds majority. This provoked widespread public anger, and several more proposals for the direct election of Senators would be introduced over the next few years, but none succeeded[6]…
- From Socialists of America Unite! A History of the Socialist Labor Party by Aaron Sorkin
[1] IOTL, the 62nd Congress had 228 Democrats, 161 Republicans, and one Socialist (Victor Berger, who is now in his second term ITTL).
[2]Eugene Debs, Meyer London, Joe Ettor, and Charles Moyer took seats held IOTL by Democrats, while William Z. Foster, William Trautmann, and Vincent St. Johns took seats held IOTL by Republicans.
[3]One of the seats in Pennsylvania that would have gone Republican IOTL went Democratic thanks to the SLP.
[4] More on that later…
[5] IOTL, the race rider was included in the initial resolution. The Senate instead passed their own resolution that didn’t include the race rider, which the House passed a year later.
[6] This means that the Seventeenth Amendment is never passed ITTL.
Last edited:
dentista campora
Banned
Will we see a wide expansion of the SLP in local government, as a way to try and breach the senate? Haywood's election sounds like it
And honestly, it's a path that sounds very interesting. I bet that having wide representation locally and in the house, but being more or less locked out of the senate and most state governments could foment some grievances that might turn interesting in the future.
And honestly, it's a path that sounds very interesting. I bet that having wide representation locally and in the house, but being more or less locked out of the senate and most state governments could foment some grievances that might turn interesting in the future.
Ooh, if the republican establishment starts pushing back on popular reforms to shut out the socialists the could very quickly see a large part of the progressive faction defect or break off to run a fusion ticket
So far I haven't really seen "fuckery," but rather merely not passing the Seventeenth Amendment yet. In all honesty, I cannot see this being delayed forever, because literally everyone wanted direct election of Senators except for a few Senators; even if the Senate failed to pass it, the states were very, very close to calling for an Article V convention on the subject (at which point all hell would break loose, of course). Additionally, many of the states had to all effects and purposes established popular voting for Senators by making their selection contingent on a binding primary that directed the legislature's votes. At most this might push the passage of something like the Seventeenth Amendment back a few years, but the system as it stood was one that no one was satisfied with, so even a slightly (and at this point it is only slightly) more successful Socialist party isn't likely to prevent it from being changed.
Last edited:
I would describe repeatedly failing to pass an amendment to mandate direct national elections for Senators because a few people were scared they might have to work with socialists as fuckery. Even if it's not fuckery over a long period.
I would not, because passing (or not passing) bills is a normal function of a democracy and in a representative democracy personal views are always going to be a factor in what bills do (or do not) get passed. "Fuckery" would be changing the rules specifically to undermine the socialists, or using force against them. That hasn't really happened yet--I have no doubt it will, but not yet (well, discounting pre-story events like Haymarket).
Yes. After all, without a direct route to the Senate, the only way in is for the SLP to win majorities in state legislatures. This also allows them to enact socialist policies at the local level.
The socialist scare does turn a few states away, enough to prevent an Article V convention in the immediate future, but you're right that popular sentiment remains in support. However, there is a flawed assumption in your analysis...
If nothing else, this is also happening right when new Congressional districts are being drawn following the 1910 census.
Strictly speaking, that's not necessary due to the binding primary system many states had enacted (although admittedly that could be undone--but that would be "fuckery"), or the possibility of coalitions or cross-party appeals by the Socialist candidate. Admittedly, the latter is not particularly likely, but it might be possible in some cases depending on the exact political makeup of the state and the legislature. Also, just getting to that point would mean that they had a fair amount of power in the state and could enact at least some socialist policies.
Then I may be misunderstanding how the binding primary system works. I've had trouble finding decent information on the subject.
As for cross-party appeals, the SLP would be open to those, but only on their terms. If they'd gotten to where they are now a decade ago, I could see an SLP-Populist alliance, possibly resulting in Eugene Debs serving in William Jennings Bryan's cabinet, or even as his Vice President.
My understanding was that it works exactly like it says: the binding primary is run and a candidate is "elected" to the office; then the legislature is bound to vote for them for Senator. I could be mistaken of course, I have not deeply researched it.
Well, naturally...in most circumstances. I think it would have to depend on their relative strength in the state and other local factors. But I had in mind something more along the lines of the SLP running a candidate who is able to successfully persuade Democrats and/or Republicans in the legislature to vote for them, quite possibly based on parochial or personal factors, than anything else.
I thought that meant that the legislature got to pick from the primary winners, so no one could get into the Senate without the people voting for them, but the legislature could enact a final veto.
One downside of the SLP's de facto alliance with the IWW is that the SLP is seen by most politicians as very radical (which they are). In some places, you'll probably see at least some alliances between the SLP and either party.