{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"38490824","dateCreated":"1304449001","smartDate":"May 3, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"kerryhawk02","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kerryhawk02","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1290541046\/kerryhawk02-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/2011kozlowskicblockgroup3.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/38490824"},"dateDigested":1532428417,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Question 1","description":"What common threads do you see in each of the strikes? How are they similar in terms of reactions of the workers, owners or government response? What commonalities do you see between the workers?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"39391392","body":"Response to Greg:
\nI agree that the strikes began as a result of wage cuts, but I think that not all of the cuts were due to a panic or recession. That was the case in the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Pullman Strike, but for the Haymarket Riot it was more because of the long hours they consistently worked, and for the Homestead Strike, instead of a Panic, it was simply that the value of steel decreased.
\nIt's very frustrating that the employers never really cared about the workers' distress, and instead sent troops to stop them from protesting poor treatment. They wouldn't even let them have a complaint committee.","dateCreated":"1306069497","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"LauraW16","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/LauraW16","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39396296","body":"During each of the strikes the reasons for the workers going on strike were because of bad working conditions and horrible wages. The companies did not want to work with the unions to raise wages and this made the workers angry. The Government took the side of the employer by shooting at the workers at the strikes. The unions usually dissolved after the strikes and if they did survive then they had very low public support. The workers ended up going back to work with the exception of some who were leading the strikes.","dateCreated":"1306084589","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"mryan01867","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mryan01867","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39397214","body":"All four strikes involved violence, which caused unfortunate and unnecessary deaths. During the Baltimore Railroad Strike, 10 people died in a fight between state militia and strikers. The Haymarket Riot resulted in multiple deaths from a bomb that went off after the arrival of police. In the Homestead Strike of 1892, a fight between workers and Pinkerton Guards ended in the tragic deaths of three guards and seven workers. After 30 federal troops were sent in to end the Pullman Strike, 30 people were killed. All these deaths came from live in fear and anger on both the sides of the workers and the business. These resentments deepened after every strike. With each strike, the business and government reacted poorly to the workers. The government, in each case working for the business rather than the workers, sent in officials of some sort, whether Pinkerton guards, police officers, or state troops. After this happened the demonstrations would break out in violence. If the government had acted as a communicating and cooperating force between the workers and business, rather than as a force helping the business suppress the workers, the strikes may not have led to violence and worsened relations. They could have improved worker\/union-business relations. Instead workers, many immigrants who earned little money in poor working conditions, only grew angrier at the company they worked for. Relations grew tenser, and the gap between workers and management worsened.
\n-Meghan Friedmann","dateCreated":"1306087400","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"violinist899","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/violinist899","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39397356","body":"Each of the strikes started out with workers being treated poorly, whether it was making laborers work long hours and giving them little pay in Homestead to making laborers work in dangerous conditions (The Great Railroad Strike of 1877). The companies simply would not care for the workers\u2019 safety and working conditions. All of the strikes were violent and resulted the death or injury of some strikers. The government was also involved in each of these strikes, whether it was in the form of police, the National Guard or even Pinkerton Guards, because the violence had often reached the point where these controlling groups were necessary. However, these controlling groups were often part of the problem later on because whenever they would open fire\/wound the strikers, the striker would in turn cause more violence to get revenge. In the end, these strikes did change to the thinking of the American public. After these strikes, many Americans even saw unions as the problem for all the violence and Americans also saw how important the labor issue actually was.","dateCreated":"1306087871","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"maham2","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/maham2","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39397594","body":"In Response to Greg:
\nYou are right to say that the companies hardly ever yielded to the workers\u2019 demands. This is something that surprised me as I read about each of the strikes. Would it really have hurt the businesses that much to improve working conditions and wages? During in-class discussion about the Andrew Carnegie DBQ, we concluded that doubling all of his workers\u2019 salaries would have only taken several thousand dollars out of Carnegie\u2019s daily $92,000 salary. This would not have hindered Carnegie\u2019s way of living at all but would have improved the lives of the workers, who were not even making $600 a year, by quite a bit. While I know there were faults on both sides that led to violence, I believe it was mostly the fault of the businesses. There were small things they could have done to prevent the violence in the first place, and it was their fault that the workers even needed to protest. As you point out, it is also interesting that unions were usually dissolved after the strikes. The \u201cKnights of Labor\u201d union disappeared after the Haymarket Riot, and the American Railway Union (ARU) vanished after the Pullman Strike. Unions had to disband after the strikes due to troubles the violence had brought them, and the government and business trying to jail leaders. After the Pullman strike, for example, the president of the ARU was jailed. But little changed about the businesses. A large part of the reason for this could have been that the government was at the hands of the businesses, and usually helped to put down the strikes. With government and money in the hands of the industrialists, it was very difficult for the workers to make significant changes to poor labor conditions.
\n-Meghan Friedmann","dateCreated":"1306088625","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"violinist899","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/violinist899","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39397670","body":" In response to Matt: I agree that the reasons for the workers going on strike were \u201cbad working conditions\u201d and \u201chorrible wages.\u201d In regard to the \u201cbad working conditions\u201d comment, I would just like to specify that these bad working conditions included long hours and unsafe\/hazardous working conditions. I am not quite sure if the Government took the side of the employer all the time. I feel that the Government\u2019s intent of calling in the National Guard was to stop the violence. However, in the case of Homestead, the Pinkerton Guards did take the side of the employer as they were hired by the employer.","dateCreated":"1306088848","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"maham2","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/maham2","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39403906","body":"Reply to Meghan:
\n
\nNegotiations would have been a much better option than just sending in troops to break up the strike. At the time however, I think the government, especially president Hayes, was far too anti-labor to have made the negotiations have even a remote chance of success at improving worker conditions. Often, the workers had the support of the public until violence broke out, in which they automatically shifted favor to the government. Over the course of 4 major strikes however, the public began to become aware of the existence of a concrete problem between worker and employer, which later allowed the public to understand the reasons behind the violence and make actual changes happen.","dateCreated":"1306105514","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"GregAhn","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/GregAhn","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39404522","body":"In response to Maham:
\n
\nThe Government did take the side of the employers because I do not remember at any time when an employer or company owner was killed in the strike while the workers were killed by the National Guard. The National Guard went in to stop the violence but by doing this they took the side of the employer and throughout this period business men would be bribing politicians to vote for what they wanted.","dateCreated":"1306106976","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"mryan01867","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mryan01867","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39406672","body":"In all of the strikes the workers were forced to endure terrific conditions with low wages and dangerous work. What normally set of the already high tensions was some decrease in conditions such as a cut in wages that was usually the company's attempt to crush the unions involved in order to gain greater control over wages. The strikes seemed to start out well, yet were crushed after the government intervened on the side of the corporations.","dateCreated":"1306111225","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"lukes2013","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lukes2013","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39408318","body":"In response to Maham's answer, I agree that in most cases the strikes ended up being detrimental to the strikers' cause. Also, that the government had such an interference on the strikes and seemed to always halt the strikers. Although in many cases the corporations could not raise their own forces to stop the strikers, their strong influence over the government allowed them to have even more control over the strikes.","dateCreated":"1306113700","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"lukes2013","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lukes2013","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39409446","body":"The workers reacted in strikes when companies cut wages, raised hours, or made work conditions more difficult. The companies treated works just as they treated the machines; they are all just interchangeable parts. During the strikes companies hired scabs so that production would not change. If the strikes did get violent, then the company owners would go to the government for help and most of the time federal troops would rush in to stop strikes. Also many companies blacklisted people who were involved with unions, so that unions wouldn\u2019t get as much support.","dateCreated":"1306115667","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"xjpatelx","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/xjpatelx","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39411444","body":"In response to Matt:
\n
\nI agree that most of the strikes were over working conditions and wages. But also it wasn\u2019t just that the companies didn\u2019t want to raise wages. They also wanted to lower them from what they were. Also the Unions were dissolved because of the violence that broke out, so many people didn\u2019t think that Unions were safe or good to be in.","dateCreated":"1306118395","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"xjpatelx","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/xjpatelx","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":3}]},{"id":"38490814","dateCreated":"1304448993","smartDate":"May 3, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"kerryhawk02","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kerryhawk02","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1290541046\/kerryhawk02-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/2011kozlowskicblockgroup3.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/38490814"},"dateDigested":1532428418,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Question 2","description":"Overall, in what ways were these strikes successful? Unsuccessful? Why? For this question, you might consider what type of workers were on strike and how this impacted the success of the strike.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"39395910","body":"The strikes overall were not that successful. The strikes made the unions look violent and out of their minds. What the strikes did do was show the companies that workers wanted better working condition and better wages. After the Great Railroad strike some companies did reverse wage cuts and it was an eye-opener to the companies that if the wages were to low then workers would go on strike. The strikes still didn\u2019t change a lot because at some point the workers had to go back to work because they didn\u2019t make enough to feed their family while on strike.","dateCreated":"1306083308","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"mryan01867","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mryan01867","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39397942","body":"
\n
\nThe strikes were both successful and unsuccessful. They were successful in the sense that they caused the American public to realize the importance of the labor issue through the media attention it attracted. They were also successful because many workers returned to work after the strikes were over with some improvement in their working conditions. However, they were unsuccessful at the same time because many of the strikers either died or got injured. The strikes also unsuccessful because the American public to see unions as the problem for all the violence. Overall, though, the strikes were successful as they did improve workers\u2019 conditions, in general, for future workers.","dateCreated":"1306089766","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"maham2","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/maham2","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39397944","body":"
\n
\nThe strikes were both successful and unsuccessful. They were successful in the sense that they caused the American public to realize the importance of the labor issue through the media attention it attracted. They were also successful because many workers returned to work after the strikes were over with some improvement in their working conditions. However, they were unsuccessful at the same time because many of the strikers either died or got injured. The strikes also unsuccessful because the American public to see unions as the problem for all the violence. Overall, though, the strikes were successful as they did improve workers\u2019 conditions, in general, for future workers.","dateCreated":"1306089768","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"maham2","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/maham2","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39398096","body":"Overall these strikes were unsuccessful. Unions were dissolved. These included the \u201cKnights of Labor\u201d union after the Haymarket Riot and the American Railway Union after the Pullman Strike. The Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers (AAISW) union ended after the Homestead strike, and unions in that area would not reform for decades. Most the strikes left working conditions just as bad or worse than they had been before. Each strike worsened relations between the workers and businesses. After the Haymarket Riot, people were unjustly hung and jailed. After the Pullman and Homestead Strikes, union leaders were blacklisted and jailed. All the strikes involved horrible violence. Many of the bad outcomes for the workers were due to the government interference as a suppressing force working for the company, instead as a force trying to represent all the people.
\nThere were a few successes to these strikes. They marked organization among workers. The Great Railroad Strikes launched the beginning of the \u201cKnights of Labor\u201d union. More unions would follow. The Great Railroad Strike did help improve working conditions. This was partly because railroads were a national necessity, and having those particular kinds of workers on strike caused big problems. The other strikes were in less immediately vital industries, such as steel and cars. However, poor organization of this strike contributed to its end. The changes it resulted in were also short-term, and out of fear because it had been the first national strike. Other successes of the strikes included that they allowed workers to unite and somehow stand up for their worker rights. This at least exposed the horrible labor problems to the American public.
\n-Meghan Friedmann","dateCreated":"1306090367","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"violinist899","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/violinist899","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39398104","body":"In response to Greg and Laura: The strikes were immediately\/ literally unsuccessful. However, I agree with Laura in that that theoretically the gain was greater than the loss. There were lives lost but it was the violence and the lives lost that brings our attention toward that issue in the first place. Without the violence, the American public may not have fully realized how important the labor issue was to the strikers who lost their lives fighting for the cause.","dateCreated":"1306090408","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"maham2","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/maham2","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39398374","body":"Response to Matt:
\nI agree that the strikes did not truly change anything concrete for their workers. However, over time, unions would improve to have greater affect. Today we have unions that are more permanent and have more control over their company. This does not mean there are not problems with modern U.S. labor, as there are still companies that treat workers poorly, or support factories outside the U.S. that treat workers poorly. Still, the U.S. no longer has the same nationally violent strikes as it used to. Clearly the workers of the strikes in the late 1800s would help the state of U.S. labor in the long run by exposing its problems. I also agree that the strikes made workers look violent, but to the American public at the time. For example, newspapers called for the severe punishment of strikers after the Great Railroad Strike. The Haymarket Riots made people associate unions with violence. These were definitely not successes. The reaction of the American public surprised me, as the businesses and government were also violent. Not only did government interference instigate much of the violence of the strikes, but the strikes were also a result of the oppressive treatment of businesses, which the government supported. If the American public started associating strikers and unions with violence, why didn\u2019t they associate the businesses with just as much, if not more, violence and oppression?
\n-Meghan Friedmann","dateCreated":"1306091326","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"violinist899","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/violinist899","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39404102","body":"Response to Meghan:
\n
\nI think the fact that the major strikes did, in the end, convince the public of a problem, is fairly important in itself. If a strike occurred today, e.g. the teachers' strike which occurred some years ago, especially for a necessary and important profession, most people would think that they are being selfish, ungrateful, and hurting the public by withholding such important services for the sake of money. If they got violent, they would only be painted as savage and barbaric. However, if 4 major strikes occurred over a short span of time, say 17 years; from that, we would be forced to realize that the workers may not be doing it simply because they are greedy. After all, if they were doing it simply for money, there wouldn't be enough support to start multiple national strikes in two decades.","dateCreated":"1306106075","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"GregAhn","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/GregAhn","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39404390","body":"In response to Greg:
\n
\nI agree with what you are saying about how there was so many strikes in the matter of a couple of decades. After so many strikes the public started to get convinced that the workers needed some sort of protection from the companies. In the short term the strikes were unsuccessful because the companies didn\u2019t put the wages up and improve working conditions. In the long term the strikes started to get the public\u2019s attention and that is what they needed.","dateCreated":"1306106686","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"mryan01867","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mryan01867","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39409688","body":"Although the success of the strikes varied in the short term, they all contributed to a growing nationwide feeling that labor was an issue that needed to be dealt with. As result of the strikes, many labor unions were either totally wiped out or forced into secrecy. This led to an even greater deterioration of working conditions as the companies' control over the workers increased. Most of the strikes brought about even worse conditions for the workers.","dateCreated":"1306116073","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"lukes2013","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lukes2013","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39409778","body":"Most of the strikes were unsuccessful because the strikes did not change anything. After the strike works went back to work, usually with the same wage and hours. They were mainly unsuccessful because the government intervened and stop the strike. If the government had not stepped in all the times they did, owner would have had to make some changes. Also people were blacklisted with by the end of the strike, which put them out of work.","dateCreated":"1306116178","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"xjpatelx","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/xjpatelx","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39409986","body":"In response to Matt's post, I agree that the strikes largely failed in that many of them gave people a poor view on unions as a whole. However, some of these strikes actually gave the corporations a bad representation such as the case with the Pullman Strike. Overall, the strikes did weaken public support for their cause and forced many unions to move into secrecy.","dateCreated":"1306116409","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"lukes2013","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lukes2013","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39410848","body":"In response to Laura's response:
\n
\nI agree that that the strikes did put an idea in the public's mind, but that didn't do much. Because even the future strikes did little because that idea was easily crushed because the government went against them when the strikes. Even though the idea was there, its hopes were totally crushed.","dateCreated":"1306117694","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"xjpatelx","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/xjpatelx","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":4}]},{"id":"38490804","dateCreated":"1304448979","smartDate":"May 3, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"kerryhawk02","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/kerryhawk02","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1290541046\/kerryhawk02-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/2011kozlowskicblockgroup3.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/38490804"},"dateDigested":1532428420,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Question 3","description":"Examine the government's role in the strikes. Do you agree with the response of the local, state or federal authorities? What involvement should the government have in strikes, if any? Why?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"39391488","body":"Response to Greg:
\nI didn't think of that in my response- the idea that "a strike which destroys property and is violent is technically illegal and should be stopped in someway before innocent civilians get hurt." I agree that violence and property damage in these strikes may have been too much, but then again, in multiple cases, the violence was started by the government interference, and the strikers responded to it. But absolutely, when there are so many strikes going on within 10 years of each other, there's something wrong that needs to be fixed, and the government shouldn't crush their protests.","dateCreated":"1306069882","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"LauraW16","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/LauraW16","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39395374","body":"I agree partly with the government interfering with the strikes. It was okay for the workers to go on strike and not work for the company to get there point across but once the workers started interfering with the company\u2019s property. Then destroying millions of dollars in damage is when the line should be drawn. At that point the government has to get involved but the National Guard firing on the strikers should not have happened and the government should have found a non-lethal solution than to just kill the strikers. Like during today\u2019s riots the government uses non-lethal weapons like tear gas and other things. Very rarely do they kill people in strikes today and so back then they should have took more of a non-lethal approach.","dateCreated":"1306081478","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"mryan01867","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mryan01867","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39398600","body":"
\nThe government was also involved in each of these strikes, whether it was in the form of police, the National Guard or even Pinkerton Guards, because the violence had often reached the point where these controlling groups were necessary. However, the local militia\/government should have handled the situation better so that the National Guard was not needed. Also, the violence by these controlling groups that occurred also could have been somewhat avoided or reduced.","dateCreated":"1306091692","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"maham2","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/maham2","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39398702","body":"I do not agree with the government\u2019s role in the strikes. They helped the businesses put down the strikes instead of trying to reform problems with the companies that had led to the strikes in the first place. With the arrival of government officials, such as police officers at Haymarket Square, the militia in Philadelphia during the Great Railroad Strike, Pinkerton Guards at the Homestead Strike, and federal troops in the Pullman Strike, came violence and the deaths of many on both sides. These people did not have to die. Their deaths could have been prevented if government had dealt with the problems differently. They should have represented all people involved with the labor problems and helped businesses and workers work together. If this had been done, they could have helped solve some of the labor problems prevented future strikes from being necessary, or at least from being violent.
\n-Meghan Friedmann","dateCreated":"1306091902","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"violinist899","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/violinist899","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39398942","body":"In response to Laura: I agree with you in the sense that local militias \/troops should have been the ones controlling the situation instead of the National Guard. But we also must acknowledge why the local militia couldn\u2019t control the violence. It was more specifically pointed out in The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 that, \u201cMany local militias were ineffective, as they saw friends and relatives in the crowd and refused to fire upon them.\u201d Thus, in some cases, calling in the National Guard may have been the more logical option.","dateCreated":"1306092491","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"maham2","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/maham2","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39399002","body":"Response to Greg:
\nI can see both your points, and realize that destroying property is illegal and needs to be dealt with. However, I do not think destroying property deserves a punishment of death. It was not right to kill the workers. During times like the Pullman Strike, something needed to be done about the workers taking over the plant, but perhaps this could have been meeting workers demands and improving their conditions rather than going to confront them in a fight. I do not think the series of strikes needed to escalate to this degree of trouble, and part of this was the fault of the government for not supporting working conditions. I agree that the government should have seen and stopped faults that were not of the strikers. These included poor working conditions and low wages that had caused the strikes in the first place. The government could have gone about the strikes in a much more constructive, pro-labor way. If things had been changed earlier, it is possible that much of the violence could have been prevented.
\n-Meghan Friedmann","dateCreated":"1306092657","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"violinist899","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/violinist899","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39403726","body":"Response to Matt Ryan:
\n
\nI think in a way, it was necessary for workers to do something other than just stop working, since it was very easy for employers to just hire someone else in their place (scabs. If you don't like it, leave; they can find 10 others who would gladly take your place.
\n
\nAt the same time, it is not okay to let angry mobs stampede around the nation, so some government response is required, but I don't think non-lethal, as far as a physical response goes, was an option at the time. They didn't have lightweight ballistic shields, tear gas, tasers, or rubber ammunition.
\n
\nThe best option would have been to try to negotiate in some way, which failed because the government was very anti-labor.","dateCreated":"1306104990","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"GregAhn","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/GregAhn","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39404762","body":"In response to Meghan:
\n
\nI agree with what you are saying about how the workers should not be condemned to death for destroying property. There was really no choice and the Government had to either go anti-labor or neutral. With the bribing of politicians and also to go with the workers who were destroying millions of dollars in property wouldn\u2019t really be a good move. What they could have done was use more of a neutral approach and stay between the strikers and the employers so the violence would not break out.","dateCreated":"1306107448","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"mryan01867","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/mryan01867","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39410222","body":"In nearly all of the strikes, the government seemed to purposefully go against the strikers in support of the corporations. In many instances, the government authorities fired on the mostly unarmed strikers killing and wounding many men. This is contrary to what the government's role aught to be. The government should have used its power solely to keep peace during strikes and not to interfere on either side.","dateCreated":"1306116777","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"lukes2013","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lukes2013","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39410260","body":"I do not agree with the government\u2019s intervention. I believe that if the government continued to stay away from businesses affairs, the owners would have had to made changes for the workers. Because the government helped stop the strikes, businesses owners knew that nothing would have to changes because they had the side of the government. The government should have advised the businesses owners to have change or penalize them for not collective bargaining. This way the workers would have been happy and the government wouldn\u2019t have to take anything major actions that would show that they were for a certain side.","dateCreated":"1306116844","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"xjpatelx","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/xjpatelx","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39410370","body":"In response to Meghan's post, I agree that the government had taken the wrong steps with all four of the strikes and different measures may have produced less violent results. Since the goal of the government should have been to keep the peace, I think that her idea of interceding between the companies and workers in hopes of providing a settlement would have been a fitting solution.","dateCreated":"1306117021","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"lukes2013","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lukes2013","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"39411260","body":"In response to Grey:
\n
\nI don\u2019t agree with the government getting involved at all. Yes, the strikers destroyed property, but if the government wanted to help they should have done it in more of a peaceful way. They federal troops were ordered to go in there and stop the strike and if violence broke out they were ordered to shoot? I agree the government should have noticed that the strikers weren\u2019t at fault maybe after the 2 strike. The government should have gotten both sides together and solved the problem.","dateCreated":"1306118142","smartDate":"May 22, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"xjpatelx","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/xjpatelx","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":3}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}