INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct pnnt, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI* Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available UMI THE PLOW AND HAMMER: FARMERS, ORGANIZED LABOR AND THE PEOPLE'S PARTY IN OHIO DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Michael Cain Pierce, M.A. The Ohio State University 1999 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Warren Van Tine, Adviser Professor Michael Lea Benedict Adviser Professor David Stebenne History Graduate Program UMI Number : 9941411 Copyright 1999 by Pierce, Michael Cain All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9941411 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT The dissertation argues that the Ohio People's (Populist) party was essentially a labor party and permits new insights into the American political process. While Ohio farmers remained loyal to the traditional parties, most of the state's labor organizations — including the United Nine Workers and the central labor bodies of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus — endorsed the People's party. Moreover, the state's leading trade unionist, John McBride, led the forces attempting to take the American Federation of Labor (AFL) into an alliance with the People's party and defeated Samuel Gompers for the presidency of the AFL in 1894. The Populist's nomination of Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan for president in 1896 and the fusion of the two parties destroyed the coalition that Ohio trade unionists had built around the People's party. Although some of the state's unionists embraced Bryan and the free coinage of silver, most Ohio trade unionists saw the fusion as a betrayal. Instead, they joined other political parties or de-emphasized the role of politics in labor's salvation. At the national level the AFL had been roughly divided between forces led by McBride wanting to transform the Federation into a partisan organization through an alliance with the People's party and forces led by Gompers feeling that the Federation should emphasize economic action. By leaving McBride and his allies without a party, the fusion undercut the political unionists and contributed to the triumph of Gompers and pure and simple unionism. 11 The dissertation challenges the existing historiography in three ways. First, the supporters of the Ohio People's party do not fit the agrarian-centered definitions of Populism offered by Hicks, Hofstadter, and Goodwyn. Second, whereas most historians argue that organized labor rejected farmers' appeals to enter into a producer-based political alliance, in Ohio the opposite was true. Third, scholars seeking to explain the triumph of pure and simple unionism within the AFL and organized labor's acceptance of corporate capitalism have failed to look at the fusion of 1896 and the activities of trade unionists working with the People's party. Increasingly, scholars have sought to explain the rise of pure and simple unionism in hopes of understanding the conservative nature of modern American politics. They have noted that while European trade unionists were forming political parties to contest the emergence of corporate capitalism, American trade unionists rejected the primacy of political action and implicitly accepted the emergence of corporate capitalism. Without the support and legitimacy unions could have provided, American socialist parties tended to be weak and vulnerable. By offering an additional explanation of the rise of pure and simple unionism, this research understanding of modern American political life. I l l Dedicated to my first teachers, my mother and father IV ACKNOWLEDGHENTS First and foremost, I wish to thank Professor Warren Van Tine for his friendship, enthusiasm, and guidance. Without him this project would never had been completed. Michael Les Benedict's encouragement and advice have made me a better historian. This work has benefited immensely front his wisdom. I am grateful for Professor David Stebenne'a reading of the work. He has kept me focused on the forest rather than the trees. The Ohio State University's Center for Labor Research provided material support for the project. Its director. Professor C.J. Slanicka, and assistant director, Sandy Jordan, have provided something more important — friendship. I want to thank the Ohio Bicentennial Commission and Ohio State University's Graduate School. Both provided fellowships allowing me to devote all my energies to the research. A number of graduate school colleagues have both consoled and counselled me. I would particularly like to thank Barb Terzian, Phil Payne, B e m y Grindel, and Mark Spicka. Most importantly, I want to thank Tricia Starks. Not only did she read every word I wrote five or six times, but her love sustained me throughout the project. VITA January 5, 1965.................. B o m - Columbus, Ohio 1987 ....A.B. Sociology, Kenyon College 1987-1989........................ Editorial Assistant, Journal of Palestine Studies Institute of Palestine Studies Washington, D.C. 1990-1997 Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 1997-1998 Research Assistant, Center for Labor Research, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. Warren Van Tine, C.J. Slanicka, Sandra Jordan and Michael Pierce, In the Workers' Interest; A History of the Ohio A.F.L.-C.I.O., 1958-1998. Ohio State University's Center for Labor Research: Columbus, 1998. (Distributed by Ohio State University Press). 2. Michael Pierce, "The Gutman-Bill Debate Revisited: R.F. Warren and the National Executive Board of the United Mine Workers." Labor History 38, no.l (Winter 1996-97), 76-80. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: History V 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................ il Dedication.............................................................. iv Acknowledgments................ v Vita.................................................................... vi List of Tables........................................................viii Chapters : 1. Introduction........................................................1 2. Producer Politics in Ohio, 1865-1890...............................9 3. Farmers and the Ohio People's Party, 1890-1893................... 51 4. Ohio Labor and the People's Party, 1890-1894..................... 94 5. The People's Party as a Labor Party, 1894-1896.................. 203 6. Labor Politics after the Fusion of 1896......................... 257 7. Conclusion....................................................... 301 Bibliography........................................................... 303 V l l LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Industrial Production in Ohio, 1860-1890......................... 10 2.2 Industrial Production in Cincinnati's Hamilton County, 1860-1890.................................................11 2.3 Industrial Production in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County, 1860-1890.................................................13 2.4 Industrial Production in Columbus's Franklin County, 1860-1890.................................................14 2.5 Average Value Per Acre for Major Crops, 1880-1889................46 3.1 Third Party Candidates in 1890 County Elections.................. 64 3.2 Third Party Candidates in 1890 Congressional Elections.......... 65 3.3 Farmers Favoring Political Action................................ 73 4.1 Results of Cleveland's Mayoral Election, 1891...................102 4.2 Results of Cincinnati's Mayoral Election, 1894..................135 viii 4.3 Wages for miners in Rendville, Ohio, May 1893-April 1894....... 177 4.4 Percentage of Populist Votes in the Coal Mining Regions of Ohio's Six Largest Coal Producing Counties......................196 4.5 1894 Populist Vote in Selected Working Class Wards of Major Cities.................................................. 197 4.6 1894 Populist Vote in Selected Medium-Sized Industrial Cities................................................198 5.1 Results of Cleveland's