Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:20:31.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Profit Over Class: A Study in American Industrial Espionage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

R. Jeffreys-Jones
R. Jeffreys-Jones
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

My students at the University of Edinburgh often ask me, why have Americans been so anti-socialist? Some of them perplexedly refer to the rarity of class conflicts, as, say, Clydesiders would define them, in United States history. They remain unconvinced by ‘class’ or ‘economic’ interpretations of the American past. They underline the paradox by recalling the comparative weakness, in the long term, of organized American socialism. Still, they point out, there has been a good deal of anti-socialist, anti-communist rhetoric across the Atlantic. Is mere any explanation for what, on the face of it, seems to be a ranting in the void?

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , December 1972 , pp. 233 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 An interesting exception is Shils, E. A.'s The Torment of Secrecy: the background and consequences of American security policies (London, 1956).Google Scholar

2 Dilnot, G., Great Detectives and their Methods (London, c. 1927), p. 217.Google Scholar

3 Hogg, J. B., ‘Public Reaction to Pinkertonism and the Labor Question’, Pennsylvania History, II (07 1944).Google Scholar

4 ‘Investigation of the employment of Pinkerton detectives in connection with the labor troubles at Homestead, Pa.’, House report, 52 Cong., 2 sess., no. 2447 (7 February 1893), p. (xiv)Google Scholar; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Education and Labor, Violations of free speech and the rights of labor (75 parts, 1937–41), part I, rept. no. 6, Strikebreaking services, p. 7.Google Scholar

5 F. Fligelman, ‘Violence: notes on Pinkerton's National Detective Agency’ (n.p., n.d.), in unpublished reports of the Research Division of the Commission on Industrial Relations, 1912–15 (henceforth CIR) at the State Historical Society, Wisconsin (henceforth SHSW), p. 24.

6 ‘Investigation … Homestead, Pa.’, p. (xiv)Google Scholar; Friedman, M., The Pinkerton Labor Spy (New York, 1907), p. 4.Google Scholar

7 Friedman, , Pinkerton, pp. 7, 22–3, 178Google Scholar; Idaho Daily Statesman, 20 June 1906.Google Scholar

8 Drew to Rossitter, , 9 March 1907Google Scholar, in Drew Papers, University of Michigan.

9 Gutman, H. G., ed., ‘Five Letters of Immigrant Workers from Scotland to the United States’, Labor History, 9 (Fall, 1968), 388.Google Scholar

10 Huberman, L., The Labor Spy Racket, 2nd ed. (New York, 1966), pp. 6, 15–17, 197.Google Scholar

11 ‘Investigations in relation to the employment for private purposes of armed bodies of men, or detectives, in connection with differences between workmen and employers’, Senate report, 52 Cong., 2 Sess., no. 1280 (10 February 1895), p. (x).Google Scholar

12 New York Herald, n.d., quoted in American Industries, 3 (April 1905), 3Google Scholar; New York Tribune, 30 November 1905Google Scholar; Chicago Tribune, 2 May 1905Google Scholar; Craige, J. H., ‘Professional strikebreaker’, Collier's National Weekly, 44 (12 1910), 20Google Scholar; Zumach, W., ‘Report on investigation of detective agencies’ (n.p., 1914), CIR/SHSW, pp. 9–10Google Scholar; Bremer, W. B. and Stewart, P., ‘Report on strike of the International Teamsters' Union against Montgomery Ward & Co.’ (n.p., 1905), in Ethelbert Stewart Papers at the National Archives, Washington, D.C. (henceforth NA), pp. 189, 193.Google Scholar

13 Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Violations …, part VI, rept. no. 6, Labor Policies of Employers' Associations, The National Association of Manufacturers, p. 12.Google Scholar

14 Zizelman, P. A. to general manager, Weltman Bros., New York City, 14 July 1905Google Scholar, in Labadie Collection, University of Michigan.

15 Adams, T. S., ‘Violence in Labor Disputes’, Publications of the A.E.A., 3 ser., 7 (1906), 180Google Scholar; Weed, I., ‘The industrial causes of violence …’ (4 parts, n.p., n.d.), CIR/NA, part 3, p. 1Google Scholar; Spielman, J. E., The Stool Pigeon and the Open Shop Movement (Minneapolis, 1923), p. 16Google Scholar; Howard, S., The Labor Spy (New York, 1924), p. 1.Google Scholar

16 Huberman, , Spy Racket, 2nd ed., p. 193Google Scholar; New York Times, 25 March 1942.Google Scholar

17 Anon., List of detectives (n.p., 1914), CIR/SHSW; D. O'Regan, ‘Conclusion derived from investigation of armed guards up to September 1, 1914’ (n.p., n.d.), CIR/SHSW, p. 3; Zumach, , Report, passim.Google Scholar

18 McCarthy, C. to Burns, , 10 February 1915Google Scholar, Burns to McCarthy, 16 February 1915, Charles McCarthy Papers, SHSW; Grant, L., ‘Violence in labor disputes and methods of policing industry’ (n.p., n.d.), CIR/SHSW, p. 6.Google Scholar

19 McCarthy-Burns correspondence, as above.

20 Burns, W. J., The Masked War (New York, 1913), p. 209Google Scholar. See also Fisher, D., ‘Home Colony: an American experiment in anarchism’ (M.Litt. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1971).Google Scholar

21 New York Times, 1 November 1936.Google Scholar

22 O'Regan, D., ‘A study of detective agencies that supply strikebreakers and armed guards in time of industrial disputes’ (New York, 1914), CIR/NA, p. 1Google Scholar; M. Kazimensky, general manager of the United Hebrew Trades, verbal statement to Daniel O'Regan (the quotation is O'Regan's paraphrase), 25 May 1914 in Weed, I., ‘Industrial causes’, part 3, p. 32.Google Scholar

23 Weed, , ‘Industrial causes’, part I, pp. 16–17Google Scholar; Grant (work unspecified) cited in Cummins, Earl E., The Labor Problem in the United States (London, 1932), p. 474Google Scholar; Hunter, , Violence and the Labor Movement (New York, 1914)Google Scholar; Howard, , Labor Spy, p. 66.Google Scholar

24 Hunter, , Violence, p. 283.Google Scholar

25 Dilnot, , Great Detectives and The Story of Scotland Yard (London, c. 1926)Google Scholar; Sweeney, J., At Scotland Yard (London, 1905)Google Scholar; Greenham, G. H.. Scotland Yard Experiences (London, 1904).Google Scholar

26 P. Frank, per Librarian, New Scotland Yard to R. J.-J., August 1968; Tobias, J. J. to , R. J.-J., 25 July 1968.Google Scholar

27 Zumach, , Report, p. 1.Google Scholar

28 Weed, , ‘Industrial causes’, part I, pp. 15, 17.Google Scholar

29 Haywood, , A Detective (n.p., n.d.), in Labadie Collection, University of Michigan.Google Scholar

30 McNamee, , ‘Spies and Traitors’, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's Magazine, 44 (02 1909), 449–50, 452.Google Scholar

31 Zumach, , Report, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

32 Hillquit, M., ‘Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and Liebknecht against Louis B. Boudin’ (n.p., 1911)Google Scholar, Morris Hillquit Papers, SHSW.

33 Baker, , ‘Right to Work’, McClure's, 22 (01 1903).Google Scholar

34 Roosevelt, T., Autobiography (New York, 1913), p. 529.Google Scholar

35 Grant, L., Violence, p. 73.Google Scholar

36 Ibid.

37 Taft, W. H., Message to Congress; industrial relations [2 February 1912] in Committee on Industrial Relations. Pocket Pamphlet No. 3 (New York, 1912), pp. 3, 5.Google Scholar

38 Zumach, , Report, pp. 19, 21.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., pp. 14–16.

40 ‘Brickbats in the City of Brotherly Love’, Colliers, 44 (12 March 1910).Google Scholar

41 Frayne to Gompers, 13 April 1911, in Gompers Papers, SHSW.

42 Burns, to McCarthy, C., 16 February 1915Google Scholar, in McCarthy Papers, SHSW.

43 Keleher to Furnas, P. J., General Food Products Co., New York City, 22 July 1920Google Scholar, in Labadie Collection, University of Michigan.