Reinterpreting Men who Died for Labor

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge, ... It is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitue, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prison-"
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many more would rather die."
         A Christmas Carol. 1843. Charles Dickens.

     For just over two centuries, human society has transitioned into the Industrial Age. Before that time, credited with beginning in England at the end of the eighteenth century, the points and purposes of work were to sustain oneself and one's family, provide for those that could not provide for themselves, and save for future times of need. Machinery simplifies repetitive tasks and speeds up the means of production; thus, mass production not only led to a consumerist culture since more goods were manufactured than needed but also led to a population boom that created a frontier-style mentality of humankind, that is, that humans were an expendable resource that could easily be replaced. While modern industrialized countries now have steady or declining birth rates and bulk at the wanton waste of human life in developing nations, throughout the nineteenth century, Europe had a mindset that human death or disfigurement for capital gain was acceptable, even virtuous.
     As the Age of Industrialization has progressed, work has been made easier and with less exploitation of common works for the gains of the rich. Labor unionization, largely in the twentieth century, enabled the workforce to unite for gain, recognition, and protection. This mentality aided in popularizing socialist ideals throughout Europe through the current day. Work was not always a mindlessly repetitive affair accomplished by machines because skilled artisans used to be responsible for the means of production.
     The Luddites were a loosely organized group of artisans that armed in resistance to wage decreases brought on unskilled workers running machines for lower wages than artisans who had no other support for their livelihood. Luddites did not fear technology, machinery, or the transition into an age of mass production. Their fear was a loss of labor to unskilled workers for reduced wages. For acting out on that fear, hundreds were killed or exiled.

     These industrious, intelligent, skillful men expressed their anger by destroying the cause of their destruction: the machines that replaced them. Often they posted letters attributing the destruction of machines by the order of King Ludd or General Ludd who was rumored to live in Sherwood Forest, home of the fabled Robin Hood. This mascot, a fictitious figure gave the Luddite Cause momentum, mystique, and an unconquerable hope. In 1812, 12,000 British troops were deployed to quell civil uprising and protect factories in north-central England. This force outnumbered the one that occupied the Iberian Peninsula to fight Napoleon. 

     Meeting the concerns of the people with force and legal punishments of execution or penal exilement to Australia led to an impassioned plea of a Romantic sympathizer in the House of Lords in 1812 before the passage of the Frame Breaking Act. On February 27, 1812, Lord Byron pleaded:

During the short time I recently passed in Nottingham, not twelve hours elapsed without some fresh act of violence, and on that day, I left the county I was informed that forty Frames had been broken the preceding evening, as usual, without resistance and without detection. Such was the state of our country, and such I have reason to believe it to be at this moment. But whilst these outrages must be admitted to exist to an alarming extent, I cannot be denied that they have arisen from circumstances of the most unparalleled distress.
The perseverance of these miserable men in their proceedings, tends to prove that nothing but absolute want could have driven a large and once honest and industrious, body of the people, into the commission of excesses so hazardous to themselves, their families, and their community. They were not ashamed to beg, but there was none to relieve them: their own means of subsistence were cut off, all other employment preoccupied; and their excesses, however to be deplored and condemned, can hardly be subject to surprise.
 As the sword is the worst agruement that can be used, so should it be the last. In this instance it has been the first, but providentially as yet only the scabbard. The present measure will, indeed, pluck it from the sheath; yet had proper meetings been held in the earlier stages of these riots, had the grievances of these men and their masters (for they also had their grievances) been fairly weighted and justly examined, I do think that means might have been devised to restore these workmen to their avocations, and tranquility to the country.

     The crimes of the Luddites were not often the destruction of factories or the murder of factory owners. With some exceptions, attacks were carried out at night against machine-based factories whose owners had opted to fire and displace a large worker base. The anger of the common man was not against machine but against the abuse of his fellow man.
     While the term "Luddite" has come to mean a backward-minded, fear-mongering, simpled-headed individual too scared or stupid to accept change, the true motivation of the men two centuries dead was a fear of becoming obsolete and taken for granted. This is true of many societies today whether industrializing from manpower to machine or as machines expand to encompass and control more industries.
     The protest at the beginning of the Industrial Age did not go unheard; it went misinterpreted. As always, those who do not know, understand, or forget history must suffer the repetition of its lessons Let us keep our sledgehammers in hand, ever prepared to resist the avarice of those who do not value community or quality, only the wealth gained through exploitation.

 __    

Agatha Tyche

Mugwumps

     The Twentieth Century, known as the American Century, elevated the United States' reach expand with unprecedented power economically, militarily, and influentially around the world. That century saw the United States involved in interventionists wars in every decade on nearly every continent. The path to American Imperialism did not rise unprotested from the world; indeed, a full decade of debate in American politics fought against the militaristic domination of the mighty the American economy.
     Anti-expansionist isolationists began cries of alarm in the 1860s with American's consideration of annexing several Pacific islands. As American foreign relations swelled, these isolationists, referred to as Mugwumps, joined forces with a large number of Republicans to create a considerable anti-imperialist political movement in the 1890s.
     The Spanish-American War allegedly fought over humanitarian issues on the Caribbean Island of Cuba was the first American interventionist war and foreshadowed the entire twenty-first century. Despite the humanitarian declaration that incited U.S. intervention, after the war the island of Cuba was ruled through an American military state some years. Since war proponents had encouraged removal of Spanish influence to protect American interests, anti-imperialists feared further annexation of territories abroad to defend American economic intersts. With this logic, William Sumner argued that “the U.S. would have to dominate the entire world to feel safe in any part of it.”¹ The Mugwumps’ protest intensified.

1 William Sumner. “The Predominant Issue,” War and Other Essays. Edited by Albert Keller. (New Haven,

Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1919), 351.

     The Mugwumps as a whole were older members of society that refused to accepted the industrial changes throughout America and sought to return to the agrarianism espoused by President Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800. Several of their strongest reasons for opposing American imperialism rested on the statements of that president and of the views of many of the Founding Fathers.

     A republic is composed of free citizens; an empire has subjects. The Constitution does not prohibit control over non-citizens, but to control small islands around the world, the United States would have to force itself onto those people and rule through oppression as the European Empires did at the time. American isolationists argued that a republic cannot govern without consent of the govern. Pro-expansionists defended their stance that occupational force was a necessary evil and would allow the U.S. to defend native islanders against any future invaders.

   Bourke Cockran, a Tammany Hall leader, spoke out against Republican expansionist policies because, “it is cowardly to invade the rights of the weak while respecting those of the strong; because it would divorce the American flag from the American Constitution . . . because it is a policy of inconceivable folly from a material point of view, and a policy of unspeakable infamy from a moral point of view.” These reservations against invasions did not sway its opposition because they believed that the growing might of U.S. economy needed military and trade bases to aid in dispersal of American goods.

    The domestic social unrest of late nineteenth century America's adjustment to industrialization complicated the issue further by having to adjust to the assimilation of ten million freed slaves after the Civil War's end in 1865. Isolationists feared that the incorporation of Pacific Islanders into American society would further disintegrate American society and that the the cost of providing governing laws and a military presence abroad would outweigh any economic benefit.

     One of the last arguments by Mugwumps and isolationist-Republicans held on to the American colonial fear of a large standing army and a subsequent, substantial national debt limiting the freedoms of Americans and necessitating the federal government retracting upon its own anti-colonial history. George Hoar, a Republican senator for Massachusetts, equated expansionist principles with “forsak[ing] the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address, the Monroe Doctrine, and the nation’s traditional distrust of a standing army.”² These reservations did not successfully counter the dogmatic, imperialist viewpoints of the pro-expansionist movement and American became a colonial power by the close of the nineteenth century.
 2Robert Beisner. Twelve Against the Empire: The Anti-Imperialists 1898-1900. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill 

Book Company, 1971),

     The fundamental purpose of the anti-expansionists was to defend the United States on Constitutional grounds. Anti-imperialism failed because of advanced age of many of its leaders, inability to connect with the new industrial population, and the negative approach to the isolationist arguments.

     Despite their political defeat by McKinley, Roosevelt, and other Republican expansionists by 1900, the anti-imperialists were fairly accurate in their predictions. The Philippine Islands’ rebellion cost thousands of American lives. American treatment of the Filipino population was the same or worse than the previous Spanish overseers. American military expenditures did increase causing greater taxes with the formation of the Federal Income Tax. Imperialism inextricably involved America in European political affairs.

     With the abandonment of its isolationist policies, America lost her innocence and transformed into an imperial country. Expansionist government changed the social, economic, and constitutional perceptions of Americans and colonies alike. “The traditional consensus persisted: America has a unique set of values, way of life, and form of government to offer the world . . . the consensus then divided, as it always had, between those who believed those goods were best spread benignly, by example, or assertively, by force.”³ With the collapse of the anti-imperialist movement at the close of the nineteenth century, America entered the new era with a new purpose: to destroy those who oppress and to liberate the weak.

3  Walter Nugent. Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansion. (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), 315.

 __    
Agatha Tyche