Part 2: The View From My Time

Hello again readers... There hasn't been much going on here in the past lately. Talk about the riot last May has died down a bit. Most Chicagoans who are thinking about it are talking about the details of the trial, the lengthy appeals process, or whether the condemned should have their reprieve. Beyond that exists the fear and doubt left behind from the initial media frenzy as to any further anarchist threats, as well as answers as to who the "real bomber" was on this last May 4th...

Anarchism initially developed in Europe during the revolutions and uprisings of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as well as during the political disputes of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin in the 1860s for control of the International Workingmen’s Association. Bakunin’s anarchism departed from Marxist thought on the point of uprisings. Where Marx argued for a measured process of stages leading to revolution, Bakunin argued that through willful acts of defiance, the masses could be made aware of their power and the resulting revolution could help create a better world. These actions advocated by Bakunin and other anarchists were not important on their own. Instead, through the reproduction of material from anarchist trials, the anarchist message was able to be spread to larger audiences than more conventional writings or lectures, thereby amplifying their general message (Elun, 34-6). The growth of anarchism in America has been tainted by stereotyped notions of what anarchists are and what they represent. These stereotypes were largely formed during the Haymarket era, drawing on the foreignness of ideas brought to America by radical Germans. Anarchism in America however, has mainly been a domestic affair and a good deal of its adherents were converted in the crucible of the American labor struggles. Albert Parsons demonstrates this reality both with his native birth and his arrival at anarchism being the solution to America’s labor struggle. Parsons was the progeny of Puritan founders and Revolutionary War partisans. He fought as a Confederate volunteer, and then fought for the rights of ex-slaves after the war. These events led Parsons to become a fighter and an organizer during labor strikes in the North, and it was his experience during the brutal and divisive Great Strike of 1877 that led to Parsons becoming an anarchist (Avrich, 3-38).
Parson’s conversion began with his joining the Socialistic Labor Party in Chicago, which had become a center point in labor struggles and ideology. During this time, Parsons worked within the system, agitating for the eight hour work day and other labor reforms. His slide into anarchism mirrored the split of the SLP, which is to say the dispute over the use of self-defense and direct action to attain Party goals. Disputes over whether to support groups such as the Lehr und Verein, which were essentially worker’s militias that patrolled ethnic neighborhoods and made other public displays, contributing to the sense of fear in Chicago of labor radicals. Tension within the SLP over whether to support these groups led to the split of the party, with men like Parsons and Spies becoming anarchists, dedicated to the violent restructuring of American society (Avrich, 39-52). Auguste Spies’ journey to anarchism was much the same as Parsons in that he came to America, became a Socialist, was confronted by the reality of the labor struggle in America, and became an anarchist in response. In a sense, American anarchists built a homegrown philosophy of fighting fire with fire. “Of all the major movements of social reform, anarchism has been the subject to the grossest distortions of its nature and objectives,” and their leaders were subjected to stereotypes that many Americans may still be familiar with. This classic image of the anarchist was “bewhiskered, foreign-looking… with a bomb in one hand and a dagger or pistol in the other, conspiring against rulers and capitalists (Avrich, 61).” In reality, anarchists were like any other reform organization in the 19th Century. They organized charities and parades, published newspapers, and held labor rallies at local beer-halls. However, the militaristic tone of their rhetoric caused an atmosphere of fear in Chicago, especially among the upper classes and the police in the first half of the 1880s (Avrich, 136-149).
Who was the bomber? This sentiment, voiced in a myriad of ways, has dominated local conversations in Chicago as much as talk about the anarchists’ appeal or the growing police funds. In the public mind, there have been many suspects, most of whom are quite viable. The police have settled on an anarchist connected to the trial, or another member of the conspiracy who managed to escape. The papers have indicted any foreigner whom a claim is made about, which of course allows the Times to harp away at “rabid anarchists” and their inhuman beliefs. The anarchists want to believe that one of their own did it, but no one will claim responsibility, which considering the nature of anarchist beliefs, seems to be counterproductive to the method of deliberate martyrdom. This idea is strengthened by the fact that Chicago anarchists had agreed that the May 4th rally was to be a peaceful assembly. Other anarchists (and some others) have suggested very convincingly that the bomber was in fact an agent provocateur or even a Pinkerton agent in service of the capitalists. In fact this position was advanced by Parsons until the day he died at the gallows. Other suspects include a worker with a personal axe to grind, a deranged individual, or a lone bomber who wanted to cause mayhem and left shortly after. It seems quite likely that one of these last three is the probable bomber, and they simply used the Haymarket rally as the staging ground for their madness and/or anger.
The trial of the Haymarket Eight was Chicago’s “trial of the century” in terms of visibility and notoriety. The most salient feature of the proceedings, which lasted June 21 to August 20, was the almost complete lack of evidence from State Prosecutor Grinnell, who relied more on inflammatory remarks designed to create bias among the jury. Grinnell focused on their militant ideology that called for the destruction of the state while offering up witnesses that seemed to have “seen everything” that led to the bombing. One of these witnesses, one Harry Gilmer, spun a tale that he had stood next to the bombers on Desplaines street, but could not get a clear look at him. Supposedly, he had also seen the speakers at the rally, namely Fielden and Spies, firing into the police formation and shouting encouragement to the others in the crowd to fight back. However, the funny thing about this is that I also was standing near the bombers, and not only did any of them not look like any of the defendants, I never saw any of the speakers advocating violence, let alone firing into the police. In fact, the police fired their weapons almost exclusively into a dwindling crowd of people at the end of a lukewarm rally. But then, other witnesses included Pinkerton agents who had infiltrated labor organizations and agitated within for violent action against the police, so of course the bombing must have been carried out by the anarchists. This kind of evidence was all the state had against the Haymarket Eight, and their attorney, Captain Black, tried his very best to defend his charges, but he had a major roadblock in the form of Judge Gary. Gary made it his personal mission to obstruct the defense’s case by constantly ruling in favor of the prosecution and weighing in against the men with anti-anarchist diatribes along with a basic disinterest in the trial. At one point, he had spent the entire proceeding surrounded by young socialites who spent the day sneering at the defendants while the judge doodled at his bench! Gary’s biggest oversight was his lax juror selection process. In short, he never honored a defense challenge, and allowed the box to be crowded with men who had been exposed to about two months of bad press, practically guaranteeing a guilty verdict (Avrich, 260-277).
On August 20, the Haymarket Eight were sentenced to death by hanging on December 3, 1886, and attempts to appeal the verdicts of the Haymarket Eight began almost after the trial’s conclusion. Supporters of clemency for the anarchists had a fairly wide base of support, ranging from socialists around the world to more politically modern Chicagoans who thought the anarchists did not get a fair shake by the justice system. Other supporters of clemency sought to stem the creation of future radicals by allowing the Haymarket Eight to become martyrs. This fight lasted for over a year until on September 14, 1887, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, sentencing the anarchists to death on November 11, 1887 (Avrich, 297-312). The issue of clemency then became the sole remaining option available to save the lives of the anarchists, and all efforts were concentrated on lobbying the office of Governor Oglesby. For the Governor to do this however, state law required that the defendants personally appeal for clemency. With this in mind, Oglesby drafted an agreement that would have granted clemency if the Haymarket Eight would only repudiate their past statements advocating extremism and the violent overthrow of the federal system. This produced mixed results. Three of the anarchists, Fielden, Schwab, and Neebe disavowed their earlier political statements and gained their reprieves by November 10, 1887. The other five (Lingg, Spies, Engels, Fischer, and Parsons) remained obstinate however, with Parsons representing the dissent, which was essentially that either the anarchists were innocent or guilty, but they would not back down from their political beliefs. These men were then committed to facing their deaths on the 11th. Lingg managed to martyr himself by igniting a smuggled piece of dynamite in mouth on the evening of the 10th. The other four died the next day by strangulation before a crowd of nervous onlookers (Avrich, 355-62).
An interesting aside occurs to me worth mentioning at this point with regard to the clemency issue. That is, the events of the Haymarket helped to create a rift in the Knights of Labor workers’ organization. The Knights had built their reputation on a legacy of cooperation and non-politicized action, but during the heady period known as the Great Struggle, there existed a passive competition between the Knights and the various anarchist organizations for the hearts and minds of laborers. When the topic of clemency for the anarchists emerged, the Knights set aside their disdain for anarchists and began collecting signatures for the defendants’ appeal, but these initiatives were disrupted by Terence Powderly, whose disdain could not be set aside. This overtly political act, driven both by ideological disdain and a desire to avoid the media’s branding irons, contributed to divisions in the organization, which left it open to outside pushes from the capitalist factions. (Weir, 421-39)
Stay tuned readers for the final installments of my long trip through 1886 and the ordeal of the Haymarket Eight. Next time, we shall look at the aftermath of the whole event in terms of 19th century America and the labor struggle, especially with regard to the nation’s first “red scare.” We shall also look at the modern implications of this tragic event and what it could mean in connection to the emerging 21st century…


Bibliography
Avrich, Paul. The Haymarket Tragedy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Elun, Gabriel. Performing Persecution: Witnessing and Martyrdom in the Anarchist Tradition. Radical History Review, Issue 98 (Spring 2007). MARHO: The Red Historians Organization, Inc., pgs 334-56.
Weir, Robert. A Fragile Alliance: Henry George and the Knights of Labor. American Journal of Economies and Sociology, v.56, no.4, Special Issue: Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Death of Henry George (October 1997), pgs 421-39.