Unions as an Established Religion; C. Carson

Clarence B. Carson Unions as an Established Religion JUST what sort of organizations labor unions are is not only an intriguing but also an important question. It is a question which assumed much more importance after the United States government empowered them in the 1930s. By that empowerment they became legal entities, but what sort of entities was left in doubt. Congress did attempt to define them, but the definition was in terms of their composition and purpose, not of their nature or essence. Nor have economists or historians done much by way of clarifying their basic na ture as organizations. Students and critics alike have tended to assume they are what they claim or appear to be. Customarily, modern labor unions have been traced backward to their Dr. Carson has written and taught extensively, spe cializing In American Intellectual history. He Is a fre quent contributor to The Freeman.

antecedents in the Middle Ages, the medieval guild. There are some sim ilarities between the medieval guild and the modern labor union, but they are mostly superficial. Some medieval guilds were organizations of craftsmen. In this, they did re semble the modern trade union which is organized along the line of trades, skills, and arts. They were organized, too, to restrict entry into the craft. They did so, in the first place, by requiring years of appren ticeship and supervised work before the attainment of independent sta tus as craftsmen. More broadly, as the Dutch historian, Henri Pirenne, pointed out, the craft guild's ~~essen tial aim was to protect the artisan, not only from external competition, but also from the competition of his fellow-members. It reserved the town market exclusively for him, closing it to foreign products, and at the 47 48 THE FREEMAN January same time it saw that no members of the profession grew rich to the detriment of the others."l In their monopolistic and egalitarian em phasis the guilds resembled labor unions.

But basically guilds were differ ent from modern labor unions. Craft guildsmen were fundamentally mer chant craftsmen. Although they did work at their crafts, they were or ganized primarily as merchants rather than as workmen. Their mo nopoly was of the sale of their products in a given jurisdiction, not of their labor. They were shoemak ers, hatters, bakers, butchers, tai lors, pewterers, and so forth, and they dealt directly with their cus tomers. 2 The guilds were different, too, .in that they were corporations; whereas, the modern labor union is not ordinarily incorporated. (Medi eval corporations usually had a mo nopoly within a given jurisdiction; whereas, modern corporations may or may not have a monopoly.) Above all, it should be made clear that craft guildsmen were capitalists, though on a small scale, and they were not in any sense organized against employers, management, or capitalists.

Medieval Craftsmen The craft guilds fitted within a medieval framework of specializa tion, status, regulation, and class. Their locus was the city or town within which they were incorpo rated. They were the craft counter part of clergymen, knights, export merchants, and others. They were fraternal organizations within the social and religious setting of their age. As one history puts it, ((The gilds were also religious associa tions, benefit societies, and social clubs .... Gildsmen attended the fu nerals of. deceased members, and tried to care for their families. They kept candles burning in the chapel of their patron saint, and often hired special chaplains to say Masses for the repose of the souls of their dead colleagues."3 In short, the craft guild was a medieval institution. It was a medieval mode for containing a commercial activity so that it would not become competitive and expan sive. It was no more like a modern labor union than a knight in armor is like a twentieth century soldier.

True, there are some relics of the craft guilds to be found in the mod ern union, but they tend to conceal rather than reveal the nature of the modern union. The guild was there sult of pressing yet another order of men into the medieval mold. The labor union is the leading edge of a militant collectivism aimed at fun damentally altering the prevailing order. This does not tell us what labor unions are, as organizations, but it focuses our attention in a di rection where we may be able to dis cover the answer. Labor unions have 1981 UNIONS AS AN ES'I'ABLISHED RELIGION 49 never come close to comprising all those working people whom they claim as their clientele. They are, then, a portion of a whole, or, more precisely, several portions usually, since there have been divisions among unionists. In religious ter minology, they are a sect, or several sects. And it is as a religion that they are now to be considered.

Moral Imperatives The idea of unionism as a religion first occurred to me after reading an article in a historical journal. The article dealt with the use of appeals drawn from nineteenth century Protestant evangelism by union leaders. The author was concerned with the influence of certain reli gious ideas on unionism rather than with unionism as a religion. His main conclusion was that uPro phetic Protestantism offered labor leaders and their followers a trans historic framework to challenge the new industrialism and a common set of moral imperatives to measure their rage against and to order their satisfactions."4 These observations prompted my thinking along a somewhat different path. The question that occurred to me was this: What if unionism is a sec ular religion? If it is, then, it has to be an established religion, for there is no doubt that labor unions were established by their empowerment in the 1930s. But whether or not unionism is a religion is the crucial question for which evidence of es tablishment provides no proof.

The burden of proof clearly rests on anyone who asserts that it is. It cannot be assumed. It is not gener ally accepted, or even alleged. It is not self-evident. Moreover, much of the evidence for it becomes evidence only when the connections have been made. Yet a strong case can be made that unionism is a religion, or, more precisely, religion-like, and that labor unions are esentially orga nized around a set of beliefs. And, when unions are viewed in this light, their basic character does begin to emerge. Perhaps, the best approach to the religion-like character of unionism is through the feel of it. Unionism feels like a faith. It is something in which one believes or does not be lieve. The feeling of the unity of the working class has been its touch stone. tl\.n injury to one is an injury to all" has been the phrase most commonly used to describe the ttproper" attitude of a union man.

An interesting sidelight on this oc curred at the founding convention of the Industrial Workers of the World (I.w.w.)at Chicago in 1905. Amidst the revolutionary fervor of the pro ceedings, one of those present rose to question the accuracy of the phrase. He pointed out that an in jury to one worker, or even to one group of workers, need not be an in50 THE FREEMAN January jury to all. Of course, he was si lenced. 5 The Arian challenge about the divinity of Christ was at least entertained at the Council ofNicaea in 325; not so, reasonable objections to a primary article of faith of unionists in Chicago in 1905. Missionary Zeal The missionary character of union organizing work has ~ometimes been noted. One writer points out that ((During the nineteenth century union organizers were often called (missionaries' .... Nowadays, in the interest of greater accuracy, the term has been dropped .... "6 But another writer declares that ((Even in more current times, the motive power for new unionism is provided by men and women whose main drive is the spreading of the gospel of union ism."7 The parallel with missionary work shows in this· description by one organizer of his work: ((Half of the mornings I would be up at a fac tory gate before 7 A.M. . .. distrib uting leaflets. . . . Each such morn ing was an experience; you didn't know whether the look you got from a passing worker indicated hostility, agreement, indifference, or what. A certain percentage always refused the leaflet ... , others took them and ostentatiously tore them up. Al ways, however, there was a smiling face and one or two people who wished you luck. After a while you were able to strike up a conversation with some of them .... The idea was to form a nucleus of five or ten people, call them to a meeting ...

and let them do the recruiting from the inside."8 The term ((conversion" was sometimes used to describe what had happened to those who had come to believe in unionism. Ideology as Religion But the main proof of the religion like character of unionism is in its dependence upon and relationship to ideology. Ideology is, if not the re ligion of modern man, the contem porary religion of many people. For some, secular ideologies have en tirely supplanted transcendental re ligion. For others, they have come to supplement traditional religion so as to reduce it largely to the status of a relic. And for almost everyone, the pervading intellectual outlook is temporal, secular, and this worldly. Ideologies fill the place va cated by traditional religious belief and tend to provide such religion as many people have. The onset of ideologies which sup planted or supplemented transcen dental religion was signaled by the appearance of numerous ((isms" in the nineteenth century, such as, so cialism, conservatism, liberalism, transcendentalism (man's tran scendence), communism, capitalism, Darwinism, materialism, scientism, progressivism, and so on. Not all of these were fullfledged ideologies, but 1981 UNIONS AS AN ES~rABLISHEDRELIGION 51 the tendency in that direction was indicated by the attaching of the suffix ~~ism" to words.

Leaders as Ideologues Unionism might have been an. ideology itself, distinct and indepen dent of all others. For some, it may have been. A case can be made that the ideology of Samuel Gompers, longtime head of the American Fed eration of Labor, was unionism. One labor historian describes his atti tude this way: ~~The trade union's purpose was to maximize the price of labor through collective bargain ing.... For the worker the supreme loyalty must be to the union; for the union supreme loyalty must be to the economic advancement of the worker. For the organization must be exclusive, uncontaminated-~pure and simple.' Nonworkers who inter vened in union affairs were med dlers .... "9 If William Green, who succeeded Gompers as head of the A.F. of L., was anything other than a unionist the fact has not come out. Indeed, the list of union leaders who were ideological unionists, if ideo logues at all, should include John L.

Lewis, William L. Hutcheson, such Teamsters as Dave Beck and Jimmy Hoffa, and, in· more recent times, George Meany. Such unionism, too, falls considerably short of being a religion. But unionism in America is not an independent ideology, not usually, not historically, and not in those dogmas which are necessary to its general acceptance. It is not that ~~pure and simple" unionism would not succeed sometimes as a basis of organization and in the advance ment of some particular group of workers. William L. C~Big Bill") Hutcheson demonstrated the poten tialities of such unionism with the Carpenter's union which he headed for several decades. He was a huge man who was determined to and did become master of his domain. His domain, in his view, included all who worked with wood or with materials that had been substituted for wood. His jurisdictional battles were leg endary, and his domination of those under him was rarely questioned.

t~His world was seen through the narrow-angle lens of the union's in terests; his only concern was with what was good for the Carpenters, not with what was good for the labor movement, workers in general, or America."lo The antisocial charac tor of his unionism was apparent to all who would see it. Moreover, it is highly doubtful that he could have succeeded to the extent that he did without the protective coloration drawn from another ideology and which was coming generally to pre vail. Unionism is a derivative ideology; it derives from and depends upon so cialism. Its collectivism finds its jus tification in socialism. The crucial 52 THE FREEMAN January doctrines of class consciousness and the class struggle derive from so cialism. Socialist ideology provided the protective coloration for union advancement of the interests of par ticular groups. Influenced by Socialism One way to examine the depen dence of unionism on socialism is through the influence of socialism on union leaders over the years. That is larger than is generally recog nized.

Even Samuel Gompers, accepted in his day as being among the most conservative of union leaders, was influenced by socialism. He heard the doctrines of socialism from Ger man and Hungarian immigrants who worked alongside him making cigars in New York City.ll He also studied them on his own.12Gompers disavowed the utopianism of social ism and steered clear of militant class struggle rhetoric, but Theo dore Draper holds that the Marxist influence might be the key to his op position to union involvement in politics. There were two prominent strains in socialism in the United States in the 1870s and 1880s, one stemming from Lassalle and the other from Marx. Marx opposed the political road to socialism, while Lassalle fa vored it. Out of this ferment came ~~ex-Socialists and former Socialist sympathizers who moved from tradeunion socialism to trade unionism without socialism. Two cigar mak ers, Adolph Strasser and Samuel Gompers, traveled this road from so cialism to ~pure and simple' trade unionism. The American Federation of Labor, which they were largely instrumental in forming in 1886, in part grew out of the reaction against political unionism."13 At any rate, the influence of socialism was there at the inception.

With many other labor leaders, there was no doubt of their commit ment to socialism. Eugene Debs, quadrennial candidate for President on the Socialist ticket, organized the American Railway Union in 1893. Although his conversion to social ism was subsequent to this, his po sition on the relationship between unionism and socialism is made clear in the title of a book he published in 1904: Unionism and Socialism, a Plea for Both. He was a prominent figure at the organizing convention of the IWW and for several years thereafter in its work. Daniel De Leon, head of the Socialist Labor party was also a union leader and an important spokesman at the founding of the IWW. William D. C~Big Bill") Haywood, longtime leader of the IWW was so radical that he was expelled from the exec utive committee of the Socialist party in 1913.14 David Dubinsky, leader of the In ternational Ladies Garment Work1981 UNIONS AS AN ES'I'ABLISHED RELIGION 53 ers Union, was an enthusiastic so cialist before he became a union leader. He was born in Czarist Rus sia, made his way to the United States in 1911, and within days of his arrival joined the Socialist party.

For several years thereafter, his main interest was socialist activities. 15 Sidney Hillman, leader of the Amal gamated Clothing Workers and eventual confidant of President Franklin Roosevelt, was a Russian by birth and a socialist in his early life also. Indeed, in Russia, he had been a Menshevik, the less violent of the Marxist Communist parties. 16 Homer Martin, the president of the United Auto Workers who took the union into the CIa, was under the influence-perhaps, domination would be nearer the mark-of Jay Lovestone. Lovestone was an anti Stalinist who formed his own small Communist party. 17 The socialist background of Walter Reuther, long a leader in the UAW and CIO, may be better known. His father was a socialist, and he trained his sons to follow in his footsteps. Walter and Victor were members of the Social ist party, and Walter only finally re signed from it to become a Democrat in 1938.I8 "Fellow Travelers"

A goodly number of union leaders were Communists, or closely associ ated with them, particularly in the 1930s and 1940s. This was the case with Harry Bridges of the Long shoremens,19 Michael Quill of the Transport Workers Union, and Joseph Curran of the Maritime Workers Union.20 Lee Pressman, who served as General Counsel for the CIa, had joined the Communist party in 1934 and left it in 1935, according to his statement. 21 Len DeCaux, editor of the CIa News in the 1930s was characterized by Eu gene Lyons as a uFellow Traveler" of the Communists. 22 John L. Lewis used Communists with reckless abandon in organizing the CIa, and Philip Murray, who succeeded him as the head of the organization, did little to disturb their entrenched po sitions in many unions. 23 Murray, incidentally, had been influenced by the British Fabian socialists, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, in his concep tion of unions. 24 Many more names could be given and connections made, but the above should be enough to make the point.

My point, of course, is to show that unionism is lineally connected to so cialism, that the modern labor union was in considerable measure the off spring of socialism, and that social ists gravitated toward unions and union work. (It should go without saying that it is no part of my pur pose to indict people for their beliefs or associations, but since there are those who do, it probably needs say ing.) The role of unions for radical so54 THE FREEMAN January cialists has been described this way: ((To be sure, revolutionary class con sciousness ... must await the capi talist crisis that would prove the in ability of the economic system to meet the workers' needs. Prior to the crisis, however, political and trade union activity prepared the workers organizationally and ideo logically for the conflict that would result in great social changes. Radi cals were to enter the trade unions in order to win over workers to the ideas of socialism, but also to en courage militant struggles for im- .

mediate demands."25 The Religion-like Nature of Socialism and Unionism The place of socialism in unionism varied greatly, of course: for some it was the springboard into unionism; for others the unions were simply a means of moving toward socialism; for yet others socialism had only provided a framework for unionism of which they may have been more or less conscious. Many individual union members are probably not aware at all of the socialist assump tions which inform unionism. My broader point is this. Social ism is a religion, or is religion-like, and unionism by derivation is also religion-like. Socialism is religion like because of its vision of creating a heaven-on-earth. Bertram D. Wolfe concluded the following about Marxism: In an age prepared for by nearly two thousand years of Christianity with its millennial expectations, when the faith of millions has grown dim, and the altar seems vacant of its image, Marxism has arisen to offer a fresh, antireligious re ligion, a new faith, passionate and de manding, a new vision of the Last Things, a new Apocalypse, and a new Paradise. 26 Other varieties of socialism, such as gradualist or democratic, may hold forth the vision less dogmatically, yet they, too, are religion like in their faith. The vision, linked with its unionist thrust, was articulated this way at the founding convention of the IWW: The road is no doubt long and weary, many centuries have passed before us; centuries of slavery, degradation, mis ery and disease. Never before have all the forces been present and all the ma terials at hand to release the world from economic slavery.... When such a transformation has occurred results which would be considered by the early Utopians as wild and chimerical will be realized .... 27 Once the view that labor unions are religion-like organizations is ac cepted, they come into focus, as they never do from any other angle. They are usually advanced as being eco nomic organizations and, some times, also as political organiza tions. But they are not economic organizations: they produce noth ing; they transport nothing; and they 1981 UNIONS AS AN ESTABLISHED RELIGION 55 sell nothing. They are dis-economic organizations. If economy be under stood as comprising those ,actions which are aimed at making avail able the greatest quantity of goods and services that are most wanted with the least expenditure of the means of production, i.e., land, labor, and capital, then labor unions do not fit into it. Their thrust is in the opposite direction, to raise the price of labor, to restrict the ways in which the means of production may be em ployed, and thus to increase the cost of production. A corporation is an economic organization; a labor union is some other kind of organization.

Not Primarily Political Nor is the labor union primarily a political organization. That is not to say that labor unions may not en gage in political activities, which they do from time to time, but rather to note that the political effort must always be subordinated to the sec tarian interests of their members, else they will consider themselves to have been betrayed. The tangles in which the British Labour govern ments have been caught when they have attempted to deal with unions illustrate the point well. But, at any rate, labor unions are not basically political organizations in the United States. Labor unions are religious, or re ligion-like, organizations, and, as I say, once this is grasped they come into focus. Their immediate goals are ethical in character; their ulti mate goals are religious. Their eco nomic claims are ethical in charac ter: this is so whether they are pressing for higher payor dealing .with particular grievances of their members. Their political activity has as its purported end the attainment of conditions within which they can successfully press their ethical claims. It is quite possible that both union ethics and religion-like be liefs can be subjected to withering criticism, but that is another mat ter. What I am doing here is to es tablish that they are ethical and religion-like organizations, and, having done so, to show where they belong in our system.

As a religion, unionism comes clearly into focus under our consti tutional law. The First Amendment to the Constitution declares that ((Congress shall make no law re specting an establishment of reli gion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .... " Historically, the prohi bition has two aspects. First, since the United States had no estab lished church or religion when the Constitution was written, it effec tually prohibits the establishment of any by the United States govern ment. Second, since some states did have established churches, it pro hibited Congress to interfere with these, or such as states might there after establish, for it prohibits Con56 THE FREEMAN January gress to make laws respecting, Le., in regard to, cCan establishment of religion." Note, too, that it is religion that Congress is prohibited to establish, the most comprehensive way of de scribing what they were after. This was deliberate. The amendment as it was originally passed by the House and Senate, each acting separately, read this way: Congress shall make no law estab lishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exer cise of religion, or abridging the free dom of speech, or the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and pe tition to the government for the redress of grievances. 28 Two major changes were made by the conference committee on this amendment before it was approved and sent to the states. One was the substitution of cCrespectingan estab lishment of religion" for Uestablish ing articles of faith, or a mode of worship."29 The other change was more subtle but hardly less impor tant. It substituted semicolons for three of the commas in the original proposal. Thus, that part of the amendment dealing with religion is separated from speech and press by a semicolon, as are assembly and pe tition from the other two sections.

The amendment, as originally drawn, was a rather narrow effort to guarantee that the new govern ment would not tamper with what were called at that time, CCthe rights of conscience." Conceivably, it could have been construed to apply only to matters of faith and belief. The changes greatly broadened what was prohibited and by separating the rights protected from one another by stronger marks of punctuation tended to universalize them. And, what is most germane here, it pro hibited the establishment of reli gion. Establishing Unionism as an Official Religion When Congress empowered labor unions in the 1930s, it transgressed the prohibition against establishing religion. It went far toward estab lishing unionism as an official reli gion. For example, in the Wagner Act of 1935 Congress proclaimed as correct doctrine what is in fact union dogma. To wit: The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual lib erty of contract, and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association substantially burdens and affects the flow of com merce, and tends to aggravate recur rent business depressions, by depress ing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry and by pre venting the stabilization of competitive wage rates and working conditions within and between industries. 30 More important, it gave labor 1981 UNIONS AS AN ESTABLISHED RELIGION 57 unions standing which can be fruit fully compared with that of estab lished churches. An established church is one which has special standing before the government. It has been granted special privileges, may have a monopoly within a state or country, and enjoys the protection and support of the government.

While the Catholic church had some of the attributes of an established church in Medieval Europe, the spe cies took on its full form during the Protestant Reformation. The Medi eval church did not consider itself to be a creature of any or all of the states; on the contrary, it preferred the position that the state was a creature of the church. Not so, how ever, the churches that were estab lished during the Reformation. In many countries and principalities, the religion of the prince was to be the religion of his subjects. The Peace of Augsburg of 1548, which dealt with Germany, provided that the uprinces and governments of the Free Cities were to be allowed to choose between the Roman and the Lutheran faith, but their subjects must either conform to this faith ... or emigrate."31 In England, the king became head of the church as well as head of the state. Of course, the parallels between established churches and estab lished unions are not exact. Still, there are some highly suggestive similarities. In both cases, the government did the establishing, or recognition and protection. True, during the Reformation, it was the prince who made the decision; now adays the decisions for unions are made by majorities. But the former was in the days of the divine right of kings; whereas, we live in the age of the divine right of majorities. The industrial strife of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries parallels the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth, and if the full thrust of socialism and the atten dant wars is added to the computa tion the more recent conflicts have been even bloodier than the earlier ones. Churches often have had their canon law; labor unions, by con trast, live under administrative law.

And, no Holy Synod has ever scru tinized with greater care the arti cles of faith than does the National Labor Relations Board, the rules which emerge from its decisions. The Use of Compulsion Perhaps, the most crucial similar ity between established churches and established unions lies in the use of compulsion. Established churches were supported by compul sory tithes and taxes, often collected by the government. Unions are sup ported by dues which become com pulsory for all workers where a union has been established. Atten dance at the established church was frequently required of all inhabi58 THE FREEMAN January Laissez Faire THE medieval epoch was finished. Individualism was exalted to a way of life. The foundations of modern capitalism were laid. The powers of government were limited. Free enterprise began. In pursuit of his economic ends, on his way to transform the world, European man was released from the restraints and sanctions imposed upon him both by the ecclesiastical tyranny and a vast bureaucratic system of administrative law....

The two ancient enemies of laissez faire were the state and the church. Laissez faire represented the principle of radicalism in both religion and economics. Radicalism was the sword of liberty. Neither the state nor the church has ever loved liberty. GARET GARRETT, from the Winter 1949 issue of American Affairs tants. In the nature of things, church membership was not compulsory, but many advantages were attendant upon it. Where the union is estab lished, all workers must accept the union as bargaining agent, whether they belong or not. Churches excom municated; unions expel recalci trant members. No one was sup posed to have relations with an excommunicated person. Expelled union members ordinarily only lose their jobs. The Medieval Church could lay regions under interdict, thus denying religious services to people in the area. National unions have been known to pronounce unions as being outside the fold and thus their members to be treated as nonunion workers.

The main argument for an estab lished church was that effective government over a people required that they all be of the same faith and belief. The main argument for established unions is that they must be united in order to accomplish their ends. Underlying both these arguments is the idea of a common enemy, or enemies who have to be met and overcome. For Reformation churches, it was other princes, rul ers of different faiths, and, ulti mately, no doubt, a wily Satan. For labor unions, it is capitalists who will overwhelm them if they are not united. In sum, unionism is an ideology. It is an ideology which arose from and was enlivened by a religion-like 1981 UNIONS AS AN ESTABLISHED RELIGION 59 ideology, socialism. When govern ment empowered unions, it estab lished a religion, in effect. When unions were permitted to use com pulsion and to have the compulsion of government used for them, they took on the semblance of established churches. This way of looking at them brings them within the frame work of historical understanding.

There is no reason to believe that when James Madison drafted the First Amendment that he thought either religion or churches were an evil. The evil he sought to prevent was government establishment. Could anything less be said of labor unions? , -FOOTNOTESIHenri Pirenne, Economic and Social His tory ofMedieval Europe (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1937), p. 183. 2Ibid., p. 186. 3James W. Thompson and Edgar N. John son, An Introduction to Medieval Europe (New York: Norton, 1937), p. 594. 4Herbert G. Gutman, UProtestantism and the American Labor Movement: The Christ ian Spirit in the Gilded Age," American His torical Review, vol. 72, p. 83. 5See Proceedings of the Founding Conven tion of the I.W.W. (New York, Merit Publish ers, 1969), pp. 245-46. GRobert R. R. Brooks, When Labor Orga nizes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), p. 9. 7Jack Barbash, The Practice of Unionism (New York: Harper & Bros., 1956), p. 19.

8Sidney Lens, Unrepentant Radical (Bos ton: Beacon Press, 1980), pp. 206-07. 9Irving Bernstein, The Lean Years (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960), p. 91; see also, Irv ing Bernstein, ((Samuel Gompers and Free Silver, 1896," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 29, p. 394. IOBernstein, The Lean Years, p. 112. uSee Samuel E. Morison and Henry S. Commager, The Growth of the American Re public, vol. II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1942), p. 157. 12See Ida M. Tarbell, The Nationalizing of Business, 1878-1898 (New York: Macmillan, 1936), p. 156. 13Theodore Draper, The Roots of American Communism (New York: Viking, 1957), p. 12. 14See Ibid., pp. 45-46. uSee Irving Bernstein, Turbulent Years (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969), pp. 78-79. 16Ibid.,p. 68. 17Ibid.,pp. 555-56. 18Ibid.,pp. 558-59. 19Ibid.,p. 259. 2°Eugene Lyons, The Red Decade (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1970), p. 223.

2lBernstein, Turbulent Years, p. 452. 22Lyons,op. cit., p. 225. 23Ibid.,pp. 221-22. 24Bernstein, Turbulent Years, p. 445. 25Stanley Aronowitz, False Promises: The Shaping of American Working Class Con t~ciousness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), p.3. 2GBertram D. Wolfe, Marxism (New York: Dial, 1965), p. 369. 27Proceedings,op. cit., pp. 141-42. 28RobertA. Rutland, The Birth ofthe Bill of Rights (New York: Collier Books, 1962), p. :215. 29See Ibid., p. 218. 30Henry S. Commager, Documents ofA mer l~can History, vol. II (New York: Appleton-Cen tury-Crofts, 1962), p. 314. 3lPreserved Smith, The Reformation in Eu rope (New York: Collier Books, 1962), p. 107.