Subscribe via RSS Feed

This Day in Labor History: February 6, 1919

[ 17 ] February 6, 2012 |

On February 6, 1919, the Seattle General Strike began. This event, the most successful general strike in American history, was also arguably the most serious working-class threat to industrial capitalism industrialists ever faced. The forces of order certainly felt this way. It also spurred on the Red Scare, deportation of radicals, and crackdown on labor activism that dominated America after World War I.



Shipyard workers walking off the job, January 1919

The Seattle General Strike began with a longshoremen’s strike, as shipyard workers protested two years without a pay raise. 35,000 workers walked off their jobs. They believed they would receive a raise after government wage controls during the war were ended. Instead, the government-appointed leader of the Emergency Fleet Corporation, designed to promote the rapid construction of America’s Navy, conspired with business leaders to keep down wages. A telegram meant for the business leaders fell into union hands, convinced the shipbuilders that they had no alternative but to strike. They walked off their jobs on January 21, 1919. Over the next two weeks, business cut off strikers’ credit at grocery stores and police raided a cooperative set up to get food to the strikers.

The rest of Seattle labor saw this as the first strike against organized labor in one of America’s most militant cities and regions. The Metal Trades Council suggested a general strike, which was approved by the Central Labor Council and set for February 6. On that day, an additional 25,000 workers went on strike, shutting down Seattle. This was the first large-scale general strike in American history. Radicals had discussed for a generation or more, but it had never been successfully pulled off. The strikers sought to take over basic city services. They organized feeding tens of thousands of people, staffed hospitals, and ensured order in the streets. The city ran peacefully.

Serving food during the Seattle General Strike

Most of the locals engaged in the general strike were affiliated with the AFL. This was a strike led by Seattle’s skilled labor. The I.W.W. dominated agricultural and logging workforces played a very small role here. But as was frequently the case throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, AFL locals were far more radical than the international leadership and especially than the federation itself. And radicals, including Wobblies, were finding jobs in the shipyards, bringing new ideas onto the shop floor.

The strike soon collapsed under severe outside pressure. As one would expect, the forces of order in Seattle and the nation were outraged by the general strike’s existence and, perhaps more so, by its peaceful nature. Perhaps union solidarity might have helped stand up to this pressure. But the American Federation of Labor leadership was equally outraged. AFL president Samuel Gompers had sought to make himself and his movement respectable during World War I. Gompers sought to clamp down on strikes, isolate radicals, and show the AFL to be the responsible option that employers should negotiate with. This didn’t really work, as anti-labor employers hated all labor unions equally. There’s a story of Gompers at a dinner with other high-powered people. Gompers talked of how respectable labor had acted during the war. A big capitalist then lambasted him, basically calling him a Bolshevik and saying that labor was the Allies’ greatest enemy during the war. After, the capitalist received congratulations from his friends across business. Gompers feared that not only was the Seattle action being run by extremists, but that it would give the AFL bad publicity and undermine organization efforts in the rest of the country. Gompers declared the strike unauthorized and withheld strike funds.

If this wasn’t bad enough, the predictable crackdown by business, police, the media, and politicians came with full force. Declaring the strikers Bolsheviks, mayor Ole Hanson gave strikers an ultimatum: run City Light (the city electrical company) at full power or the National Guard would take it by force. In an era when a lot of households did not have electricity, City Light was primarily used by business and running it at low capacity was a tool for strikers against business trying to force people onto the job. Fearful of violence and dispirited by the lack of AFL support, a few workers started returning to work on February 8 and the strike was declared over on February 9.

In the end, the general strike strategy was a total failure because it showed Seattle business that they could take the biggest punch labor could deliver and survive. After the general strike collapsed, what could labor do next? The answer was not a whole lot. As Dana Frank shows in her book, Purchasing Power: Organizing, Gender, and the Seattle Labor Movement, whereas in 1919 it seemed that Seattle labor was on the verge of starting a revolution in the United States, a decade later it was completely decimated in that city, weak, divided, and unable to stand up to the assaults of employers upon working-class lives.

Since general strikes are part of the organizing lexicon again, this is a question worth thinking about. If your general strike doesn’t work, then what? How do you raise the stakes from a general strike? These are tough questions with no easy answers.

In the aftermath of the strike, politicians sought to capitalize. Mayor Ole Hanson believed he had saved the United States from the Bolsheviks. Hanson, the son of Norwegian immigrants, had a pro-labor reputation. As a state legislator in 1909, Hanson had been a strong supporter of organized labor and he was elected mayor with some labor support. Only three days before the strike, the Seattle Union Record, the labor newspaper of note in the city and a paper very sympathetic to radicals, had commended Hanson for his calm leadership through these difficult times. But during the 1919 General Strike, Hanson came down not only as anti-strike, but as the leader of those who thought the strike the greatest threat in history to this nation. After his threat of martial law helped break the strike, Hanson became famous for his stand against anarchy and Bolshevism.

Ole Hanson

In a move later perfected by Sarah Palin, Hanson immediately resigned from the mayor’s chair, wrote a book, and went on a national speaking tour. He quickly became one of America’s most popular speakers on the dangers of anarchism and Bolshevism. Part of his speech:

The so-called sympathetic Seattle strike was an attempted revolution. That there was no violence does not alter the fact… The intent, openly and covertly announced, was for the overthrow of the industrial system; here first, then everywhere… True, there were no flashing guns, no bombs, no killings. Revolution, I repeat, doesn’t need violence. The general strike, as practised in Seattle, is of itself the weapon of revolution, all the more dangerous because quiet. To succeed, it must suspend everything; stop the entire life stream of a community… That is to say, it puts the government out of operation. And that is all there is to revolt — no matter how achieved.

The peaceful nature of the strikers itself was a threat to order! The fact that workers could run a city for 72 hours without control by capitalists and police–what could be more threatening than this!

Hanson was also one of the targets of the failed April 1919 anarchist mail-bomb campaign, although I’ve always wondered if this wasn’t a frame job. As 1920 went on though and the nation began moving away from the most egregious violations of working-class rights, Hanson’s speech began to get old fast. He hoped to capitalize by moving up in the Republican Party, but after giving his speech at the 1920 Republican National Convention, he was forgotten about and faded from view. He then went on to found San Clemente, California, promoting Spanish Revival architecture by creating a clause in the city charter demanding that new buildings go before an architectural review board to ensure compliance with the city’s chosen architectural style.

This series has also explored the Uprising of the 20,000 in 1909 and merger of the AFL and CIO in 1955.

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DrDick says:

    Red baiting has always been one of organized labor’s greatest enemies. The only way to successfully fight it is to embrace the label and point out that it was the socialists and communists who were behind virtually every advance in labor rights and protections, while the capitalists bitterly opposed all such efforts.

  2. Charlie Sweatpants says:

    Just wanted to say thanks for these posts. Labor history is a subject about which I am woefully ignorant, and I find these fascinating. Is there a relative consensus among the well informed as to a general history I might read?

  3. md rackham says:

    Thanks for this, and the rest of the series.

    Since I live and work in Ole’s Spanish-revival town this one has special resonance.

  4. Fraud Guy says:

    The problem is, that any success not from the powers that be is a threat to the established order, whether or not it is peaceful or violent. Only when protest can be co-opted into the established hierarchy is it considered safe.

    Once a hierarchy loses control over a part of the state, it is no longer part of that state, but a new one, which then has the opportunity to overcome the established hierarchy. (This thought crossed my mind while reading about the denouement of WWI.)

  5. Murc says:

    A bit OT, Erik, but are there any posts in the pipeline about the Senate Democrats knifing unions today?

  6. basement cat says:

    The picture makes me wonder what sources there are about the role of women in the General Strike. Given the AFL’s policies at the time I doubt that many women were actual union members, but it seems like many women would have been involved in feeding people and administering medical care, much like female family members and “women’s auxiliaries” have done in other labor struggles.

  7. bobbyp says:

    Repeal Taft-Hartley.
    Repeal Landrum-Griffin.

    I know. I know. Ben Nelson or one or more of his ilk might get heartburn about it. Sigh.

    You know, they could have at least pretended to try and pass EFCA before letting it go down to ignominous defeat…..or something resembling it….even a sop.

    But no. Not a fucking thing.

    Some of you might notice those GOP guys. They have no qualms passing right-to-work legislation or gutting public employee bargaining. Maybe Ben and little Joey Leiberman should join that party and put the brakes to that kind of stuff (@ federal level).

  8. bobbyp says:

    If somebody calls you a socialist, just smile and say, “Thanks!”

  9. dave says:

    “the most successful general strike in American history … arguably the most serious working-class threat to industrial capitalism industrialists ever faced”

    Three friggin’ days, followed by total collapse. Really, they were doing something wrong. At what point does a history of abject failure, however pure-hearted, become something to repudiate instead of glorify? As US political culture continues to march ever-further away from anything resembling social justice, is it possible to learn anything constructive from these episodes? Except perhaps “move to a different country”?

    • Erik Loomis says:

      I don’t think they were doing anything wrong. I think the pressures they faced were just so great. Gompers’ opposition was huge. Maybe if Gompers had been supportive, maybe it could have spread to other cities. But 60,000 workers in one city with the opposition of every major force in the nation including the head of the AFL, it just wasn’t going to happen.

  10. [...] January 5, 1970–Murder of UMWA reformer Jock Yablonski February 6, 1919–The Seattle General Strike February 11, 1937–The Flint Sit-Down Strike ends. February 24, 1912–Beating of the [...]

  11. Nathanael says:

    “After the general strike collapsed, what could labor do next? ”

    In general? War. As happened in Russia a year earlier.

    People in the US weren’t ready for that in 1919, largely due to the concessions which had already been made by Wilson’s government, and the opposition of Gompers, etc.

    However, there was more the General Strike Committee could have done short of war. To do so it would have had to up the ante of its legitimacy by holding elections and winning them.

    Have you done a piece on the competing legislatures situation which occurred in several Midwestern states during this period? I think that’s a very important part of the story….

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site