Historian Page Smith referred to the period of American industrialization as "the war between capital and labor." In a thoughtful essay, supported by informative references to relevant history, describe the extent in which you believe this statement in an accurate portrayal of American society between 1850 and 1900.
~
Historian Page Smith’s reference to the American industrialization as “the war between capital and labor” was somewhat accurate. Although most of the components were warlike, some were not. Things like the formation of unions and strikes captured the essence of an army, and represented “labor” in Smith’s context. However, one glitch that stands out is the fact that wars usually require a lot of money and resources on both opposing sides. The working class or “labor” did not have or presumably need much money to form strikes like the Pullman strike or the Haymarket Affair.
During the Industrialization era, the formation of unions was sprouting up in different states. The grouping can be viewed as the formation of an army, and not only was it happening with unions but with Robber Barons as well. Robber Barons, or the “capital” side of Page Smith’s context, were rich men who used sneaky tactics that sometimes involved the government. Some were factory owners, and some were wealthy by other jobs. However, the sides were clearly imminent: labor unions versus Robber Barons, the government, and the factory owners.
Common tactics of war were forming under the hands of union leaders. One greatly known labor union leader was Eugene Debs, and in the words of Page Smith, he could be considered an army leader. He was involved in the Pullman Strike, and later imprisoned for the violent act. The Pullman Strike was one of the greatest acts of revolt, and can be represented as a “war between capital and labor.” Its main cause was because the Pullman Palace Car Company reduced their workers’ wages by 25%, while still keeping the rent high. At its peak, some 250,000 workers were involved with the strike in over 27 states. The strike was known for being very violent, considering that there was $340,000 worth of property damage, and its approach on the “capital” can be viewed as warlike considering the destruction the “labor” caused.
However, the opposing side struck back when the US Marshals interfered by the order of President Grover Cleveland, who can be perceived as another army leader. In Howard Zinn’s chapter of “Robber Barons and Rebels,” Cleveland promised the Robber Barons and other higher class that he would be in favor of their needs. This promise can clearly be represented in his reaction to the Pullman Strike, where he stated it threatened public safety, ignored a federal law, and hindered the US Mail delivery.
Although the strikes represented battles, and the union leaders/higher class represented army leaders- there was one notable glitch that did not relate to historian Page Smith’s statement at all. Usually in wars, each opposing side has some money or resources. The labor unions did not have much money or resources; they basically had themselves. Besides, money was not to their advantage because their wages were cut frequently and they didn’t even need money to organize a large strike like the Pullman Strike or the Haymarket Affair. The Haymarket Affair, due to a demand for 8 hour work days, only required a mob of the labor unions. The riot eventually led to another battle.
As we can see, there are many viewpoints that can be derived from Page Smith’s statement of American Industrialization as “the war between capital and labor.” Personally, I do believe he is somewhat right. Things like unions, strikes, and violence can be interpreted as warlike qualities. However, having a side that doesn’t have money or resources does not flow with Smith’s statement.


http://www.sagehistory.net/gildedage/industrial.htm
http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/PullmanStrike.htm
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnbaron11.html