Legal and historical ramifications of the Pullman Railway Strike and its significance today.

The Gilded Age is important for numerous reasons, the involvement of the courts, the legality of the unions at the time, and the effect it had on labor disputes following the strike. What would also be significant is the shift in the view of the Pullman Strike. This section strives to show the hurdles, especially in the legal area, that the workers and Eugene Debs had to hurdle in order to gain legitimacy. I find the most compelling and important fact about the Pullman Railway Strike was the victory, depending on how you look at it, of the union. By 1894 “some 35 percent of the Pullman workforce joined the Union” (1). This inspired the confidence of the workers in reacting to the loss of wages, the high rents in Pullman City, the layoffs, and other disputes with the Pullman Railway Company. Though Eugene Debs attempted to keep violence to a minimum and urged his union to remain calm, the Pullman Strike erupted into a strike of a frightening magnitude that the United States had never seen and would never see again. At the height of the Pullman Strike “and estimated quarter of a million workers in twenty-seven states were on strike, disrupting rail traffic, or rioting” (2).

The strike solidified its importance by becoming the event most reported in the print media through the use of pictures, drawings, and one-sided political cartoons (3). The media bashed Debs repeatedly through political cartoons, which one could take a signifying the threat that the Pullman Strike posed not only to the average individual but also powerful individuals. The Pullman Strike represented more than the strikes that preceeded it during the Gilded Age, it came to represent the entire labor organization versus the entire railroad industry. The significance of this cannot be lost, even over a century later. It set a legal precedent that could not and can not be ignored. What followed the Pullman Strike was a trial that showed the extreme bias of the legal system of Chicago at the time.

The appointment of people “who had the right moral and political principles” made the bias painfully clear, even during the time (4). United States Attorney General Richard Olney handpicked his assistant, Edwin Walker, and these two would the engineers of getting an injunction, which Eugene Debs would resist. At this time, any representative of the government almost always represented the interest of the railway companies first (5). These officials spread the fear that labor unions, should they get larger and join together, would become tyranny. The severity of the Pullman Strike and the fact that it resulted in the first Supreme Court decision supporting labor injunctions makes it extremely important to modern history. These injunctions caused people to believe that judges were exceeding the proper functions of a court's purpose and that this was a violation of rights. At this time even the idea of an injunction was unprecedented.

The legal system made it seem that it would be completely for injunctions despite the personal rights this system violated. And despite the feeling surrounding the fairness of the injunctions, Eugene Debs would still be imprisoned for violating an injunction. Which, from a historical standpoint is upsetting because, despite him “violating the injunction”, Debs was a huge advocate for keeping the calm and not letting the situation escalate into useless violence that would make the organization look bad. Clarence Darrow, who would defend Eugene Debs, claimed that individuals were “puppets in the hands of the great railroad corporations and that it was persecution not prosecution” (Papke 55). Even though they lost, the defense made a few issues poignantly clear to the general population that would affect the history of labor disputes.

Another remarkable thing about the strike was the magnitude. The workers of Pullman were strong, confident, and organized. Precedent would point to their failure, would point to them embarking on what could only been seen as an uphill battle destined for disaster. The Pullman Railway Strike was one of the most far-reaching, greatest strikes of all time. The significance of that historically cannot and should not be neglected. Both legally and socially the strike carried great importance to the labor movement both of the time and continuing on until the modern day. The Pullman Railway Strike pitted the people against the federal government, which was also important to the time. The Pullman Strike never should have been seen as scary or threatening. It worked with the past to become an event that was influential and encouraging. The labor organization learned from the mistakes past and stood up for the people within the company that they felt were being treated unfairly and were being oppressed. These ideas are what made an impact. The Pullman Strike legacy kept it from being so easy for other cities to get involved with labor disputes and get in between the parties involved.

Stephen Gregory warned in his brief about injunctions and that they “will overturn the workingmen of this country, bound hand and foot, to the mercy or corporate rapacity and greed in a time when combination rules every market and every great enterprise and dominates all activities of capital The effect will be either to break the spirit of American wageworkers until they sink to a dull level but little above that of dumb beasts; or else by continuing or restraining dynamic social forces until they gather an accumulated and resistless energy by such compression, precipitate an explosion which shall wreck the social order” (6). His defense of the American Railway Union was that they HAD to strike and that people HAD to be able to take a stand against injustices in not only the labor community, but all aspects of life.

The significance of the Pullman Strike can be seen is how corporations and workers are looked at in a modern perspective. Following the strike in the 1920s the world become one where the consumer was always right and the workers were given little leeway. The memory of this Pullman Strike, throughout time, has become less about the lawyers and the company and more about the people involved, the people who, in the Gilded Age, had no voices. The Strike was an important event depicted by the media but in the 1950s the importance shifted from the Pullman Company and to the porters and workers who unfairly had their wages lowered while rent and cost of living remained the same. Under Eugene Debs they struck, placing fear in the hearts of the country. The newspapers and legal system played on these sentiments for many, many years but thanks to historians who challenged popular history, the Pullman workers are no longer painted as the horrible people they were in the late 19th century.

(1) Papke, 17.
(2) Papke, 35.
(3) Papke, 36.
(4) Papke, 40.
(5) Papke, 38-40
(6) Papke, 63

Pullman: A Monumental Strike.

The Pullman Strike occupies a very important and monumental place in the history of railway strikes during the Gilded Age. Historians like A. P. Winston believe that the importance of the Pullman Railway Strike’s history is in the fact that it was violent and that the events go sot bad in the eyes of the general public that they feared “that the city of Chicago might become involved in general riot” (1). The Pullman Railway Strike struck fear into the hearts of the people and caused them to “question whether a decent into anarchy” could happen (2). Another aspect that historians focus on concerning the Pullman Strike is the “public history” and the history according to Pullman Railway Company. These two ideas, as Janice L. Reiff and Susan E. Hirsch write about in Pullman and Its Public: Image and Aim in Making and Interpreting History, do not always parallel each other. Since the 1950’s both “academic historians and people whose lives were bound up with the company have sought to reclaim its history” (3). For many, many years “no one but Pullman Company representatives described or defined” Pullman’s place in history (4). With the work of these historians and workers or their relatives a new dimension has been added to Pullman’s history that the company “consciously ignored” (5). They also reveal how “complicated the task of recovering the past can be when dealing with a major corporation” (6). The Pullman Strike “directly affected the lives and careers of the major participants” and would hold historical significance (7).

The conflict between the Pullman Railway Company and the American Railway Union was caused by a number of issues. There was little demand for the Pullman cars as they had over supplied themselves for the World Fair. This caused a depression in business for the Pullman Railway Company. The company attempted to balance this by reducing wages for their workers. Unfortunately in Pullman City, the workers “utopia” that George Pullman built for his workers, the rents did not decrease to accommodate the decrease in wages. On May 11, 1984 the workers stuck. The Pullman Company car account of the events leading up to the strike consciously ignored “the worker’s lives both on and off the job and their struggles with corporate management” that had spanned a couple of years before the actual strike (8).

This is where the violence occurred, which both the news and the company could use to their advantage when looking back at the Pullman Strike. Any company that refused to leave Pullman cars off of their trains were met by resistance and the railway employees in turn refused to operate those trains. This lead serious consequences; “supplies were so far cut off that the city was for days threatened with famine” (9). Trains “were stopped by mobs” and many cars “loaded or unloaded were burned” (10). The apprehensions and fear in the eyes of the public were caused by “the destruction of property, especially by fire, after the strike had begun” the violence of other kinds “which occurred during the strike, such as interference by force with the operation of trains and attacks on persons either to prevent their working or in revenge” and the workers who “sacrificed the peace of the community” by acting as they did (11). What also affected the strike and its public image was that the leadership, especially Eugene V. Debs, “warned against a strike” and told the workers should a strike happen to stay far away from the violence. The company could use this in their favor in the history of the strike and, in way, “because the Pullman company was bent on controlling the past”, the strikers “were held captive by this” (12). Reiff and Hirsch consider the difficulty in breaking from the Pullman Car Company’s company line one of the most significant aspects of the history of the Pullman Strike.

Part of the problem with George Pullman’s dedication to imagemaking was the fact that once the Pullman Strike happened; it was hard for the public to see that there was any kind of problem to begin with. Winston also questions whether this strike was so different than strikes of the past. Were these men especially violent and vicious, or should one take into account the history of strikes, where these men were from, and who was writing the most immediate historical accounts of the strike? Though the leaders were publicly against violence, a lawyer for the Pullman Railway Company, Mr. A. E. Bancroft, put out a pamphlet “showing a disposition in general to deal fairly by the strikers” and “attempted to show that the American Railway Union leaders caused their workers to commit violence” (13). This statement and the actions of the Pullman Company lawyers highlights the “Pullman imagemaking” that Reiff and Hirsch believed clouded the actual series of events so much. David Ray Papke points out the legal aspects of the Pullman Company were very much connected to the capital part, which contributed to this kind of skewed presentation.

This Pullman imagemaking also affected what views were put out in movies and books in the first decades following the strike. These movies written by white Americans seem to neglect the plight of the workers as a whole, but specifically ignore the struggles of the African American Pullman porters. According to whites and blacks of the Gilded Age, the black Pullman porters had jobs with “status” but during WWI “the porters themselves began to challenge the image the company had created of contented servants” (14). When the United States passed the 1964 Civil Rights act a policy within the act specifically named the Pullman Railway Company and their practice of only hiring blacks as porters and never giving them a chance to advance to a higher paid conductor. While this is not particular relevant to the Pullman Strike, it does lend evidence to Reiff and Hirsch’s claims that the Pullman Car Company depended on imagemaking during and after the Gilded Age to keep their public image clear. This extended past the strike and even shadowed the lives of their workers.

The images that Pullman created about its workers and the strike “did not match reality and not even Pullman could maintain the façade in the face of worker opposition, government intervention, and critical scrutiny” (15). The first time this shining image took a hit was during the actual strike but even then, the violence and danger that Pullman workers represented to the public reflected badly on the ARU, not Pullman. Beyond the reduction of wages and the high rents in Pullman City “George Pullan failed also to respect the workers’ needs for self-expression and independence” (16).

(1) Winston, A.P., “The Significance of the Pullman Strike,” The Journal of Political Economy 9, no. 4 (1901), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1819352: 540.
(2) Winston, 540.
(3) Reiff, Janice L. and Susan E. Hirsch, “Pullman and Its Public: Image and Aim in Making and Interpreting History,” The Public Historian 11, no. 4 (1989), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3378069: 99.
(4) Reiff and Hirsch, 99.
(5) Reiff and Hirsch, 100.
(6) Papke, David Ray, The Pullman Case: The Clash of Labor and Capital in Industrial America (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999), 80.
(7) Reiff, 100.
(8) Reiff, 101
(9) Winston, 541.
(10) Winston, 541.
(11) Winston, 543.
(12) Reiff, 101.
(13) Winston, 547
(14) Reiff, 104.
(15) Reiff, 103.
(16) Papke, 83.

Have you heard the news of the Pullman Strike of 1894!?

I am sure the news of the great Pullman Strike has reached all four corners of this great nation by this time. About 3,100 employees went on strike in demand for higher wages. A strike unlike any strike that has been seen in past years! Is the time for change coming as the railroads come to a halt? Clippings of newspaper articles and photos of angry workers in Pullman City have been dropped on my desk since this great historical event that happened only a few short weeks ago. Apparently this is a strike unlike any strike we have seen in our great nation thus far. Workers have refused to attach Pullman Sleeper cars to trains, creating what could only be described as a standstill. Mr. Debs took up the cause of these employees, he has ordered “switchmen not to switch them; brakemen not to couple them; engine man not to draw them” (1). This will go down in history as “one of the most notable labor disturbances that ever occurred in this country” (2).

On May 11, 1894 the Pullman workers went on strike without authorization of their union, the American Railway Union under Eugene V. Debs. This has prompted outrage from the papers and periodicals! According to the Independent, printed out of New York City, this may not be considered a strike but a Rebellion! This is a “rebellion against society” and a “serious outbreak against the law” (3). They go so far as to inquire this strike by the Pullman workers of south Chicago is equal to TREASON. The Independent states that it would have no problem with the Pullman workers peaceably striking. They “had a right to leave their work when no pleased and to persuade everyone else they could not to take their place” but the worry comes when the workers expressed the intent to become violent, to take over roads and towns, and to enter into a war against the organizations to whom they served (4).

Pullman was created as a worker’s utopia. All of the Pullman workers were expected to live in a three-thousand-acre tract of land south of Chicago. This city was created FOR the workers with a “courageous scheme which was developed in its building: the beauty of architecture displayed: the symmetry of purpose and design” evolved in the construction of its vast shops and the paving of the roads of its numerous acres (5). This was a significant development in the area of labor when Pullman first unveiled his worker’s paradise. Gone, supposedly, were the grim, dark, dirty labor quarters of the past decade. Now it seems, even this “fine, ideality of a self-supporting community” was a façade. The Pullman situation highlights the fact that the labor issues will not go away with a coat of whitewash.

The public is now finding out that the labor conditions in Pullman City, how any wage negotiations were shut down without a thought. That the “grievances were many” against the Pullman Company. The papers cite the cause as the loss of wages and the refusal of the company to negotiate. In November of 1893 Pullman was paying skilled mechanics 25 cents an hour. But this scale was dependant on the pieces of work each employee turned over, so it ranged from 2.50 to 3.25 a day. Then, after November it was stated that no worker would make over 22 cents a day (6). Also, in the city of Pullman the rents were not decreased with the wages. The rent remained high while the workers were docked pay!! So easy was it for the company to decrease wages for it’s employees – this makes a substantial impact and affects every wage laborer in America. What is also significant is that there was no significant labor dispute with the first cut in wages at Pullman. It was the second reduction in wages that prompted outrage. All of a sudden no worker at Pullman Company could make over 1.50 a day.

What to do about these strikers? Opinions are all over the board as to how this situation escalated so quickly. Some people argue that they intended to remain peaceful; others believe that violence was on their minds. Do we as a people want to try and deal with this mob? Is there only one solution to a mob mentality – suppression? We “see resolutions passed by those unions which have denounced the militia and regular Army for attempting to put down not a strike but public violence” (7). It seems unanimous that the riots must be quelled. But what to do after we have taken that course of action?

Like mentioned before, the United States has seen strikes in the past decades. But this strike seems to have a deeper meaning and a harder resolution than strikes we have seen in the past. Workers watching Chicago and railway stations across the nation at a standstill over the injustices at Pullman can take something from this, be it inspiration or something else. This situation will continue to unfold over the rest of 1894, and will undoubtedly impact labor disputes of the future.


(1) “A Memorable Strike. Beginning in the Town of Pullman, It Led to the Raining of Great,” The Sun, October 20, 1894, Maryland edition.
(2) “Memorable Strike.”
(3) “Railway Men and Strikes,” The Independent, Devoted to the Consideration of Politics, Social and Economic Tendencies, History, Literature, and the Arts 46 no. 2379 (1894): 20.
(4) “Railway Men and Strikes.”
(5) “The Story of Pullman. Inside Facts of the Strike Brought to Light,” The State, July 24, 1894, South Carolina edition.
(6) “The Story of Pullman.”
(7) “Railway Men and Strikes.”