“The greatest, the most causeless, and the most unsuccessful”:

Coverage of the 1894 Pullman Strike in African-American Newspapers

Lexie Lehmann

HIST 2411: The Rise of American Capitalism

May 1, 2018
 During Reconstruction, both black and white workers had a heightened interest in forming trade

unions in order to adjust to a post-emancipation labor market. That said, theThe trade unions that formed Commented [MOU1]: Good opening sentence

during this period were generally segregated, despite it not being economically advantageous (for the

workers? Employers?) to do so. Moreover, white trade unions received most, if not all, of the white

intellectual/middle class public’s attention in the outbreak of strikes in the late 19th century. As a result,

much of the scholarship surrounding major events in labor history, such as the 1894 Pullman strike, focuses

on the polarization/conflict/tensions between white workers and their white employees. Instead, this This

paper will take a different approach and investigate the relationship between white laborers and their black

laborers counterparts by examining coverage of the Pullman strike in African-American newspapers. The

newspaper articles that I have used include selections from the Huntsville Gazette of Huntsville, Alabama,

Parsons Weekly Blade of Parsons, Kansas, the State Ledger of Topeka, Kansas, the Cleveland Gazette of

Cleveland, Ohio, the Savannah Tribune of Savannah, Georgia, the Broad Axe of St. Paul, Minnesota, the

Kansas Blackman of Topeka, Kansas, People’s Friend of Wichita, Kansas, and the Washington Bee of

Washington, D.C. Analysis of these articles reveals that coverage of the strike by the black press covered a

wide range of emotions, beginning with a lack of consensus on the legitimacy of the strike before a quick

shift towards an acknowledgement of the event’s larger historical importance. Overall, while the coverage

did not demonstrate a decisive solidarity towards the white strikers, the gaps in coverage, as well as the

events that were sporadically attended to, speak to the slow but steady growth of the emerging black labor

movement of the time.

It is of note that most of the nationally-distributed black newspapers, including the Atlanta Daily Commented [MOU2]: Not necessary, just make the
statement
World (founded 1931), the Chicago Defender (founded 1909), the Los Angeles Sentinel (founded 1934), Formatted: Strikethrough

the New York Amsterdam News (founded 1922), and the Pittsburgh Courier (founded 1911), did not begin

publication until the early 20th century, when the Pullman strike had long passed. This explains why my

initial query of the ProQuest Historical Black Newspapers database yielded no results.1 Moreover, the only Commented [MOU3]: In a traditional history paper you
would fold this into your framing without explicitly narrating
these methodological struggles – something like, “it appears
that most of the African American newspapers of the time
did not comment on the strike” – just fyi
1
ProQuest Historical Newspapers – Black Newspapers, 1910-2005.

-2-
publication included in the database that was founded prior to the strike, the Baltimore Afro-American

(founded 1892), only had features from 1895 onwards. While the database does not give a reason for this

significant lack of content, the absence is still notable. At the time, major newspapers like the Wall Street

Journal, the Chicago Daily Tribune, and the Boston Daily Globe covered just about every detail and change

in the course of the strike from its beginning in May 1894 to the end of the Congressional commission Commented [MOU4]: Good

tasked with investigating the cause of the strike, which published their final report in November 1894.2

Overall, gaps in the historical record, as interpreted by coverage of the Pullman strike in black

newspapers, were a reoccurringrecurring trend. The first coverage of the strike did not appear until May 19, Commented [MOU5]: Syntax unclear – be direct use
active voice
1894, a full week after the beginning of the strike. Furthermore, opinions on the urgency and relevance of

the strike varied greatly. While Parson’s Weekly Blade reported that “two thousand employees of the

Pullman Palace car company quit work today”,3 the Huntsville Gazette merely included that “Members of

the American Railway Union in St. Paul, Minnesota say they will handle no Pullman cars during the

continuance of the strike at Pullman, Ill.”4 in the bottom half of a section titled “News in Brief” under the

category “Miscellaneous”. Frequently, most newspapers confined their brief updates on the strike within

smaller sections of national news snippets from other non-black sources. In addition, the coverage generally

conceded that the strike’s initiation “took Pullman and his executive manager by surprise”, but beyond that,

the coverage provided no further explanation about the cause of the strike or the conditions proceeding it,

nor did it provide coverage of the events or conduct of the strikers, other than that they refused to work and

made demands for higher wages.5 The lack of content demonstrates the hesitance and slowness with which

the black labor movement began. Commented [MOU6]: This is a big leap from the empirical
info – can you make a more nuanced claim?
As the strike continued, employees in the American Railway Union around the country boycotted

Pullman cars in solidarity with the Pullman strikers. Coverage of the spread of boycotts suggested that the

2
My query of ProQuest’s database of American newspapers that included the words “Pullman” and “strike” from
dates 1894-1895 produced 3,993 results. In comparison, my search for black newspaper coverage of the same
criteria yielded only 117 results, 86 of which I deemed relevant to this analysis.
3
Parsons Weekly Blade, May 19, 1894
4
Huntsville Gazette, May 19, 1894
5
Savannah Tribune, May 19, 1894

-3-
black community’s concern with the strike focused primarily on concerns of mobility, particularly the

extent to which the boycott impeded interstate travel and commerce. In mid-to-early June, many articles

began with titles such as “Eleven Chicago Roads are Tied up or Crippled”6, “A Big Railroad Tied Up”7,

“Western Railroad traffic badly crippled”,8 and “Conspirators; All Liable for the Acts of One Member: The

Santa Fe Being Tied Up by the ARU an Organization of Railroad Men – The Company Not Feeding

Delayed Passengers”.9 In the articles themselves, the coverage emphasized the number of roads now

crippled by the boycott, with the sentiment towards the boycott being of secondary importance. The same

tactic was used among many publications later to report on July 11, 1894, that there was a risk of a

widespread general strike in Chicago, which threatened broad “business paralysis” among several sectors

of the economy.10 Demonstrably, more than just white employees, but also black workers and their families

were also negatively impacted by the boycott.

The lack of empathy for the striking employees was further evidenced by the fact that the strikers

themselves were described by several papers using the exact same language; when the union men were

characterized at all, more often than not it was with words like “quiet” and “orderly”, giving a sense that

the strike was more or less an inconvenience rather than something to be feared or paid close attention to.

If there was hostility, such as in the third title referenced above, it was directed entirely at Eugene Debs,

President of the American Railway Union. The article reads as follows:

President Debs, of the American Railway Union, has issued an order for a strike on the entire Santa

Fe system. The men are ordered to remain out until the discharged employee are reinstated. Not a

wheel is moving on the entire New Mexico division. Several arrests will be made if the United

States marshals succeed in getting here from Santa Fe. The passengers are making the best of the

situation. From Las Vegas, the wires bring this: Railroad men here are quiet, but their determination

6
Broad Axe, June 28, 1894
7
Kansas Blackman, June 29, 1894
8
Parsons Weekly Blade, July 7, 1894
9
State Ledger of Topeka, Kansas, June 29, 1894
10
State Ledger, July 13, 1894

-4-
 not to move a Pullman is very apparent. The presence of a United States marshal and a number of

deputies loaded down with guns had no effect upon them.11

The article began by placing the entirety of the blame for Santa Fe’s being tied up on Debs, who appeared

to be the brains behind the boycott operation, while the strikers themselves were “quiet”, but apparently

determined and unafraid. While there was an indication that arrests might occur, the situation as it stood

seemed to be at a rather stable impasse. The normalization of striking behavior is also a necessary

component of the emerging black labor movement. Furthermore, empathy was directed at the passengers

of the train, who ‘[made] the best of the situation’, but reportedly were not fed, indicating yet another

inconvenient consequence of the Pullman boycott.

A harsher commentary on the Pullman boycott is found in an issue of the Kansas Blackman from

June 29, 1894. After providing an update regarding the inability of trains to leave from the Emporia and

Santa Fe train stations, the publication positioned a transcribed interview between Judge C. G. Foster of the

U.S. District Court beneath the updates. In the interview, Judge Foster argued that “the labor unions are all

right and are conducive of much good to the men, but they must understand that they cannot by force keep

others from going to work… [the strikers] go beyond the bounds of reason and common sense.”12 In this

instance, the newspaper demonstrated a harsh criticism of the Pullman strike’s legitimacy and potential to

incite favorable change. Moreover, Judge Foster seems to serve as a more legitimate proxy of the black

labor movement’s opinions, which may be more closely aligned with the Judge’s sentiment that while he

“naturally sympathize[s] with the men in their cause… of course, they cannot be permitted to violate the

law or infringe on the rights of others. If the strike affected Mr. Pullman alone, consulting my own private

feelings, I should be pleased to see the men succeed.”13 It follows that the perspective of the Kansas

Blackman may have been to sympathize, generally, with the striker’s cause, but to remain critical of its

inconvenience and barrier to the progression of the entire labor economy.

11
Ibid.
12
Kansas Blackman, June 29, 1894
13
Ibid.

-5-
 Chronographically, only one article in the aftermath of the strike explicitly spoke to the exclusion

of African Americans from the white labor movement. On June 30, 1894, the Cleveland Gazette published

a short opinion editorial regarding the exclusion of black laborers from the Iowa Miner’s Union, who was

at the time engaged in a strike in What Cheer, Iowa. The article reads:

The exclusion of Afro-Americans from the Iowa Miners’ union has brought about the interesting

condition of the things in that state. At What Cheer, Iowa recently, the white miners, on the demand

of the union, struck but the Afro-Americans, having no affiliation with the organization continued

working and the mines have been supplying the demands for coal. This reminds us of the American

Railway union’s recent action and its contemplated boycott and strike. It is barely possible that a

somewhat similar condition of things may obtain when the union declares war on the Pullman

company.14

In Iowa, it appeared that black laborers were used as strikebreakers, as was a common practice during this

time. The reporter’s assertion that this practice brought about ‘an interesting condition’ provided an

intentionally neutral, or at best ambiguous, opinion on what black strikebreaking meant for the labor

movement as a whole. What is unclear, however, is why the publication was so sure that ‘a somewhat

similar condition of things’, presumably black strikebreaking, will occur with the situation in Pullman. Commented [MOU7]: Am I reading the above quote
wrong, it looks as if it says that it is *barely possible* that a
While this may suggest an opportunity for black labor solidarity with the white labor cause, the confusing similar condition [Afro Am strikebreakers] will occur in
Pullman? Oh, OK, I see below --
lack of context and explanation in the editorial could mean that it presumed knowledge from other sources

or media. It also follows that, among all of the articles analyzed, the newspaper coverage did not provide a

uniform perspective on the extent to which the black community was initially sympathetic to the Pullman

strike.

Accordingly, further coverage of the strike in the Washington Bee directly refuted the Cleveland

Gazette’s account, stating on June 30, 1894, that “the colored union railway men announced this morning

14
Cleveland Gazette, June 30, 1894

-6-
that they would offer to fill the places of all the strikers with experienced colored railroad men.”15 The

article continues:

The American Railway Union, which closes its doors to Afro-Americans, has arranged for a

boycott which may terminate in one of the largest strikes this country has yet had. The object of

the union’s attack is the Pullman Company, which has been the fairest, all things considered, in its

treatment of Afro-Americans, of the several like companies operating in this country. The duty,

therefore, of those of our people who are directly or indirectly interested in approaching contest

between the color-line union and the Pullman Company ought to be perfectly clear. Do your duty.16

Of the articles analyzed in this paper, this language most plainly expressed the black press’s perspective on

the ongoing strike, which was not as clearly articulated either before or after this editorial’s June 30th

publication. However, when juxtaposed with the previous publication’s language, it becomes ambiguous

as to whether there appeared to be consensus on the ongoing strike’s implications for the black labor

community. This is the first and only article, moreover, that specifically lauded the company for being the

‘fairest, all things considered, in its treatment of Afro-Americans’. Other articles fall more in line with the

perspective employed by the Huntsville Gazette on July 14, 1894, who referred to the Pullman Company

as “Prince Pullman”.17

The article, nonetheless, brings up a significant topic of conversation that previous articles are

overwhelming silent on: the implications of the strike on Pullman Town’s only class of black workers, the

Pullman Porters. Only two articles in the immediate aftermath of the strike referenced the Porters, and the

coverage was quite brief. On July 6, 1894, People’s Friend reads: “If this Pullman strike don’t come to an

end soon, there will be quite a number of labor organizations to go out from work. The Pullman porters are

no doubt, effected by the strike.”18 The same article also contains a brief editorial note that reads, “My

opinion is that the Pullman Porters should have went out on a strike during the World’s Fair, when the

15
Washington Bee, June 30, 1894
16
Cleveland Gazette, June 30, 1894
17
Huntsville Gazette, July 14, 1894
18
People’s Friend, July 6, 1894

-7-
porters and cars were at a premium,” which further complicates the extent to which the black press was

united with the employers of Pullman Town.19 A second article in the Cleveland Gazette contained an

interview with Senator John Sherman of Ohio, wherein he stated that he believed that the custom of tipping

your porter should be discontinued and that the companies that hire the porters should instead pay their

employees more. In response, the Cleveland Gazette stated that:

The senator might have as truly added that the money paid those ornaments, the sleeping car

conductors, ought to be paid the hard-working porters, and their offices abolished…. The porter

can, and in many cases does, perform his own and also the conductor’s duties. Some years ago, the

sleeping car conductor was unknown. Nowadays such a useless ornament is paid $75 and $100 a

month while the porter receives from the company anywhere from $10 to $25 a month and orders

to do nine-tenths of the work.20

For a second time, the opinion of the Gazette completely refuted that of the Washington Bee. Nonetheless,

all of the cases were rather silent on the current activities of the Pullman Porters and their involvement (or

lack thereof) in the ongoing movement. What’s more, coverage of the strike – as demonstrated above –

seemed to only have become relevant in sporadically distributed events, such as the interview with Senator

Sherman. Coverage on the porters, in contrast, occurred rarely, but intentionally. From the historical record

provided by the black newspapers alone, the chronological progression and escalation of the Pullman strike

itself, regardless of the inconveniences of the national Pullman boycott, seemed to be of little importance Commented [MOU8]: Could this be a class issue
Formatted: Highlight
to the black press. Instead, what was important were more general considerations of what the actions of

striking meant for the entirety of the working class. Rather than serving as a means to convey a structured

series of factual events, the project of the newspaper took on a role of spotlighting things of casual

importance. However, even in those instances, the consensus was not uniform, and the press’s arguments

relied heavily on the subjective interpretation of the preceding events.

19
Ibid.
20
Cleveland Gazette, July 7, 1894

-8-
 Beginning with the July coverage of the Pullman strike, the press demonstrated an interesting shift

towards their self-awareness of the strike as being a memorable moment in history. On July 5, 1894, Broad

Axe appeared to initiate this shift by beginning an article titled “A Great Strike” with, “The strike is on! The

most extensive strike in the history of the United States or for that matter the world was declared last week

by the American Railway Union against the Pullman Car Company and is now in full force and effect.”21

Before this, the press’s sentiment did not speak at all to the broader, historical significance of the Pullman

events. However, throughout July and after, most articles on the strike included language like, “the powers

have spoken, and the most tremendous strike known to history will be inaugurated today...”22 On September

21, 1894, People’s Friend referred to the events at Pullman as “the greatest, the most causeless, and the

most unsuccessful” strike in the history of strikes.23 What is interesting is that the shift in the press’s

awareness of the historical moment occurred rather suddenly, without a gradual escalation of events to

justify why or how the movement that was previously removed from the black working community became

relevant to the entire readership. This suggests that the shift required no explicit justification, as the strike

had been relevant to black laborers all along. Without context, it would seem that very suddenly the strike

went from brief coverage that provided the “gist of the news”, to the Broad Axe’s language that described

how the strike has “spread amazingly and is becoming more far-reaching and alarming every hour,

extending at present to almost every road in the north-western section of the country.”24

Once the shift occurred, it did not falter. The next major event in the strike was President Grover

Cleveland’s announcement that a Congressional commission would be established to understand the events

of the strike. This event, following the tone of the self-aware shift, was described in an August 16, 1894

edition of Broad Axe as:

One of the most important inquiries in the history of the labor movement of this country and which

will attract more international attention than the recent English royal commission on labor opened

21
Broad Axe, July 5, 1894
22
Huntsville Gazette, July 14, 1894
23
People’s Friend, September 21, 1894
24
Broad Axe, July 5, 1894

-9-
 today. It is the initial meeting of the labor commission composed of Carroll D. Wright, United

States labor statistician, John. D. Kernan of New York and Judge Nicholas E Worthington of Peoria

and appointed by President Cleveland to inquire into the cause of the recent labor troubles. 25

Following the Commission’s announcement, coverage of the actual testimonies provided during the

Commission’s duration was quite comprehensive, receiving the most page space and detailed descriptions

of any of the events before. Each major testimony of key strike participants such as A. R. U. President

Eugene Debs, Vice President George Howard, General Manager St. John of the Rock Island, were detailed

in depth with several-paragraph long transcripts of the specific questioning that occurred. The coverage of

the commission was probably most like the sort of content-oriented, narrative structure that is typically

associated with newspaper tone. Throughout this coverage, there is, again, a strong sense of the moment’s

importance. For example, most reports of Eugene Debs’s testimony copied verbatim his response to the

question of how to prevent future railroad strikes, indicating a new confirmation that the Pullman strike

would have broader implications to the entire labor movement. After testimony finished, there were no

significant references to the Pullman strike until November, when the Commission’s report was made

public.

The public release of the report was covered similar to the articles regarding the testimony that

was given, and many of the articles around this time also spoke to the historical significance of the Pullman

events. That said, none of the publications went further to comment strongly on their opinions of the

Commission’s outcomes. If anything, there was a subtle bias as a critique of the Pullman company, such as Commented [MOU9]: And this seems to echo the tone of
the commission itself- criticism of the railroad co power
one statement that reads: “if the Pullman company and the railroads had shown the slightest disposition to Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
conciliate, no lives would have been lost and millions of dollars’ worth of property would not have been

destroyed.”26 Unfortunately, it is unclear whether these statements reflect an honest description of the

Commission’s final report, or whether they expressly demonstrated solidarity with the Pullman strikers.

25
Broad Axe, August 16, 1894
26
Broad Axe, November 15, 1894

- 10 -
 Following the public distribution of the Congressional Commission’s report in November 1894,

references to the Pullman strike almost completely disappeared, excluding one reference to the appointment

of General Horace Porter, a notable striker in Chicago, to the incoming President William McKinley’s

executive cabinet, suggesting that the issue was all but closed and dealt with. The issue reemerged in the

early 20th century, however, with the founding of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters in 1935, which

became the first African American-led union to gain recognition by the American Federation of Labor.27 In

conclusion, additional investigation into this topic would benefit from reviewing the 1894 issues of the

Baltimore Afro-American, as well as a comparison between the coverage of these events and the coverage

of the Porters’ union. Nonetheless, coverage of the Pullman strike in the black press revealed that black

workers were not immediately/ambivalent, tense, sympathetic towards the white laborer’s strike, and in

some cases completely questioned its legitimacy and critiqued its disrupting of the economy as a whole.

That said, as the strike continued, the newspapers demonstrated an understanding of the movement’s

potential to have broader implications for the entire working class, regardless of race/consistent with the

commission’s report recommendations.

27
Arnesen Eric, 2001

- 11 -
 Lexie, you’ve done a very thorough examination of the Black press’ coverage of the Pullman strike, and

uncovered the complexities of archival silences and the binds of reading conflicted representations of

historical events. The strength of this paper is that you’ve been meticulous in excavating even the most

brief views of the strike in the Black press, and assembling it into a well-considered discussion of potential

meanings. My critical feedback for you to consider in the future is to hold even more space for the tensions

and silences that you so carefully reveal. And to be more explicit about the possible, likely, intersections of

class and race – what interests in neutrality would the Black newspapers have had in not aligning with the

strike? Your thesis statement points to compelling claims – no decisive solidarity, and an emerging black

labor movement, as you say, but I want you to stay in that ambiguous space of questioning solidarity,

archival silence, and say a bit more about what you mean by an “emerging black labor movement.” These

comments are really just meant to push you for next time – you’ve done great work here! 94 A

Bibliography

Broad Axe. 1894a. “Pullman Strike. Eleven Chicago Roads Are Tied Up or Crippled,” June 28, 1894.

———. 1894b. “The Boycott Is On. The Fight Against the Pullman Company Begins,” June 28, 1894.

———. 1894c. “A Great Strike. The American Railway Union Declare a General Strike Against the Pullman

Car,” July 5, 1894.

———. 1894d. “Commission At Work The Recent Strikes Are Being Investigated. The Commission

Appointed by President Cleveland,” September 16, 1894.

———. 1894e. “The Great Strike. Its Cause Ascertained and a Remedy Proposed,” November 15, 1894.

Cleveland Gazette. 1894. “[Senator Sherman; Employes; Discontinued; Passengers],” July 7, 1894.

———. 1984. “[Afro-Americans; Iowa; Affiliation; Organization; American Railway Union; Boycott],” June

30, 1984.

Huntsville Gazette. 1894a. “The Pullman Boycott. Will Work Havoc with the Attendance at the Christian

Endavor Convention,” May 19, 1894.

- 12 -
———. 1894b. “Prince Pullman through His Prime Minister Vice President Wickes, Declares That He Wants

‘No Interference,’” July 14, 1894.

Kansas Blackman. 1894. “An Interview With a Judge,” June 29, 1894.

“Oxford AASC: Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.” n.d. Accessed May 1, 2018.

http://www.oxfordaasc.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/article/opr/t0005/e0178.

Parson’s Weekly Blade. 1894. “Pullman Men Strike,” May 19, 1894.

Parsons Weekly Blade. 1894. “The Great Strike. Western Railroad Traffic Badly Crippled. Federal Troops and

Marshals Out at,” July 7, 1894.

People’s Friend. 1894a. “[Pullman Porters],” July 6, 1894.

———. 1894b. “Railroads And The People. An Excellent Address by President M. E. Ingalls, of the Big,”

September 21, 1894.

“ProQuest Historical NewspapersTM - Black Newspapers - ProQuest Historical NewspapersTM - Black

Newspapers.” n.d. Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.proquest.com/products-services/histnews-bn.html.

Savannah Tribune. 1894. “Summary of News Condensation of Interesting Occurrences Which Happen from

Day to Day throughout the Busy World,” May 19, 1894.

State Ledger. 1894a. “Conspirators. All Liable for the Acts of One Member. The Santa Fe Being Tied Up,”

June 29, 1894.

———. 1894b. “Illinois Central First,” June 29, 1894.

Washington Bee. 1894. “The Pullman Boycott It Is Effective on Many Western Railroads the American

Railway Union Have Taken Active,” June 30, 1894.

- 13 -