Liberalism: Power, Economic Crisis, Reform, War 65had marked the last battle in the first generation of class conflict in the era of
Industrial Capitalism, and the Capitalists had won. In each instance of class
struggle, the industrialists and bankers had too much power and could use
their money, the courts, the militia, police forces, or even the U.S. army to
crush the laborers and farmers protesting against the new economy. But that
did not mean that the economy was operating at its most efficient levels or
that Americans were happy with the changes that had occurred after the Civil
War. In fact, labor, both workers and organized unions, continued to fight for
their economic rights—for better wages, the right to organize a union, the
right to strike, the right to have better working conditions, and, as it had
before, those fights often led to armed conflict.
The often-violent nature of labor struggles had become so great by the
end of the 19th Century that even significant figures in the ruling class want-
ed it to end. While those in power knew they could crush protests if neces-
sary, political and economic leaders would rather enjoy a system that was
stable and non-violent. In fact, the harshness of labor conflicts up to Pullman
led many U.S. leaders, including Congress members, to seek laws to provide
workers with some basic rights—like creating legitimate Railroad unions, set-
ting up a system for workers to be allowed to arbitrate complaints, and ban-
ning “yellow dog” contracts in which employers forced workers to sign a
pledge that they would never join a union. While some public officials, media,
and parts of the general population were genuinely pro-labor, most ruling
class representatives wanted reform not out of their sympathy for the poor
worker, but because they believed that offering them some fundamental rights
would keep them from going on strikes and protesting in the streets, conflicts
that were bad for business. In 1898 Congress even created an Industrial
Commission to investigate workers’ issues. Mostly this was a way to give the
impression that the state was concerned with the conditions of working
people so that more radical alternatives, such as socialism or anarchism, would
not become too popular among laborers. Much of it was symbolic, because
the rights of labor to organize, strike, and picket continued to be restricted or
even prohibited.And even with such measures and apparent concern for labor,
conflict and violence did not end. In 1899 another labor crisis occurred as
miners went on strike in the Coeur d’Alenes, as they had in 1892. President
McKinley ordered troops to northern Idaho, as Harrison had, to end the strike
and establish “law and order.” For two years, Army officials prevented union