Three Conservative Locals

History

Feb 17

The Evolution of the Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union, Butte Miners’ Union, and Anaconda Mill and Smeltermens’ Union, 1898-1919

February 17, 2005

From 1898-1919 the Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union, Local 16 of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM), located in Great Falls, Montana was a conservative local. The War of the Copper Kings, a unique conflict between employers in Montana in which rival factions of capitalists benefited by gaining working class support, caused this conservatism. In order to gain worker support mining and smelting companies in Montana, especially the Anaconda Copper Mining Company (which eventually monopolized Montana’s mining & smelting industry), treated their workers better – giving them better wages, working conditions and hours – and attempted to cultivate worker loyalty towards their employers. These benefits, the fact that they were gained without struggle, and the loyalty generated by the War pushed the local in a conservative direction, affecting WFM locals throughout the state, including Local 1 in Butte and Local 117 in Anaconda.

Unlike Local 16 in Great Falls, organized labor in Butte and Anaconda eventually broke with conservatism and became more radical, although in different ways. The differences were primarily the result of the different ethnic relations, composition, and change in composition each of the three towns experienced. Anaconda’s identity as a working class town, which encouraged radicalism, and the unique way Great Falls developed, which tended to encourage unions to be more conservative, were secondary factors that helped this process along.

For purposes of this essay, conservative is defined in terms relative to the rest of the labor movement (and especially in respect to the WFM) of the time, 1898 -1919. This was a period in which radicalism influenced the labor movement, including anarcho-syndicalism and socialism. In this context, the Great Falls local examined here remained less influenced by radicalism than by other factors. The Butte Miners’ Union, Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union, and Anaconda Mill and Smeltermens’ Union fit a definition of conservatism during the period covered, both in relationship to the broader labor movement and to the specific union they were a part of, the WFM. They were reluctant to challenge the status quo, avoided strikes and other forms of direct action, took a less hostile attitude towards their employers, and tended to accept the company’s goals in term of identity. This differs from most WFM locals outside Montana, who were much more likely to go on strike or take other actions against their employers.

In 1893 delegates from union locals met in Butte, Montana and formed the Western Federation of Miners. During its first decade of existence the WFM (which organized smelters in addition to mines) became increasingly radical and gained a reputation for militancy. In 1896 the WFM joined the American Federation of Labor (AFL) but left a year later because the AFL’s conservatism and because it failed to provide sufficient support for a WFM strike in Leadville, Colorado. The WFM adopted a socialist program in 1901 and took a leading role in the founding of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in 1905.

After reaching this peak of radicalism, it started moving in a less radical direction. The WFM left the IWW in 1907, although a breach between the two had already formed before that. While the IWW became more radical, the WFM became less radical, rejoining the AFL in 1911. In 1916 the WFM changed its name to the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers.

Compared to the national level Locals 1, 16, and 117 were more conservative because they were less contentious and less likely to engage in strikes or other forms of direct action. The Montana WFM remained conservative during both the national WFM’s radical and conservative phases. Montana WFM was in sync with the national conservative trend and, in the long term, accounts for some of the conservative influences in the national WFM. However, even after the national union became conservative it still wasn’t as conservative as the Montana WFM because the national WFM was still willing to occasionally go on strike and engage in direct action, something Locals 1, 16, and 117 never did.

The WFM was founded in Montana and had locals in the state for its entire existence. For a time many WFM locals, including Local 16, were members of the Montana Federation of Labor (initially known as the Montana State Trades and Labor Council until 1903). The Federation adopted a Socialist platform early in its existence but later became more conservative. When the IWW was formed the Federation applied to become a state affiliate but was turned down because its regional focus conflicted with the IWW’s aim of organizing workers into a series of industrial (not regional) unions. The State Federation then attempted to become an independent federation, chartering its own locals who were not already a member of some other body. Critics claimed the head of the Federation was trying to preserve his job & bureaucratic turf. In response the WFM ordered all of its Montana locals to withdraw from the Federation, which Local 16 obeyed. 1

Butte, Montana was home to the mammoth Butte Miners Union (BMU), local number one of the WFM. Butte was a major mining city, specializing in copper, during this period. The city was known as the “Gibraltar of Unionism” because the vast majority of workers in the town were members of a union. Butte had more of a reputation than it deserved, however. Although the vast majority of the workforce was unionized, Butte’s unions tended to be conservative and were typically reluctant to go on strike or otherwise fight management. The Butte Miners Union and its huge membership were central to Butte’s reputation as the “Gibraltar of Unionism,” yet it never went on strike once in its entire history. The large size of the BMU and the great wealth of Butte’s copper mines gave it great potential strength against the mining companies, but because of the local’s conservatism this strength was rarely exercised. 2

The Anaconda Copper Mining Company founded Anaconda, the town (named after the company), as a location to smelt copper ores mined in Butte. As a result, it soon became known as the “smelter city.” It was a company town, dominated by the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, with a strong working class identity. For the majority of this time period the Anaconda Mill and Smeltermens’ Union, Local 117 of the Western Federation of Miners, also tended to be conservative like Local 1. 3

Compared to Butte and Anaconda, Great Falls was economically diversified. It had mining (due to nearby copper, coal, silver and iron deposits), smelting, shipping (due to James J. Hill’s railroad stop), and agriculture. 4

Like Locals 1 & 117, Local 16 of the Western Federation of Miners, a mill and smeltermens’ union located in Great Falls, Montana, was on the conservative end of the WFM. From 1898 to 1919 – a period of intense labor unrest nationally – the local never went on strike. It sometimes negotiated with management for better pay, working conditions, and hours but always avoided striking even when management would not give the local what they wanted. For example, in May 1917 the local appointed a committee to negotiate with management for half time off on Saturday. It “reported that the management stated they could not” do so. The local then dropped the matter and did not pursue it any further, avoiding confrontation with management. 5

Local 16’s organizational structure was not all that different from other WFM locals. It was an industrial union, like the rest of the WFM. The conservatism of this local (and Locals 16 & 117) was thus very unusual because, in this time period, most industrial unions were more radical. It held meetings (usually) weekly and had elections for officers on a regular basis. The local provided health benefits for members and, “any member … not 3 [months] in arrears [was] entitled to funeral benefits not to exceed ninety dollars.” The local had members of many different European-originated ethnicities, including Irish, English, Croats, Slovenes and others. No single ethnic group dominated over the others. Members of committees were usually appointed by the chair of the meeting (usually the President of the local), but were sometimes elected.

Most major decisions were made by majority vote at regular meetings. Theoretically, this gave rank and file members a great deal of influence over the decisions of the union but turnout to meetings was frequently low, which gave officers/bureaucrats, who almost always showed up to meetings, disproportionate power. Members were also quite willing to give officers hierarchical authority such as having committee members appointed instead of elected. While bureaucrats did wield considerable power, rank and file members still had a significant degree of influence over decisions. 6

The conservatism of WFM locals in Great Falls, Butte and Anaconda mainly stemmed from a similar source – a kind of corporate paternalism on the part of the Anaconda Copper Mining Company brought about mainly by the War of the Copper Kings. The War of the Copper Kings was a conflict between the various mining capitalists in Montana, who competed over mining claims, political power, and other things. This war is a major part of Montana historiography and one of the most written about events in Montana political history. Initially the conflict was primarily between Marcus Daly and Williams Andrews Clark, both copper tycoons. Marcus Daly was founder and head of the large Anaconda Copper Mining Company, which came to play a major role in Montana mining.

The Clark-Daly feud played out in many aspects of Montana politics. For example, the selection of a state capitol turned into a fight between the two (the “Capitol Fight”), with Clark backing Helena and Daly backing Anaconda, his company town. Helena narrowly won the referendum and became the state capitol. When Clark sought to get the legislature to select him as one of Montana’s senators Daly repeatedly blocked him. Both sides frequently bribed representatives to get them to vote the way they wanted. In 1899, Clark finally managed to out-bribe Daly and get the legislature to appoint him senator, but the Senate forced Clark to give up his seat due to the flagrant corruption involved in obtaining it. The legislature then selected Paris Gibson (founder of Great Falls), a much less controversial choice, as senator. 7

In 1895 Daly transformed Anaconda into a modern corporation with shares traded on the stock market. At the turn of the century, Clark found an ally against Daly in Frederick A. Heinze, an unscrupulous mining tycoon. In 1899 Daly joined with executives of the Standard Oil Company, including members of the Rockefeller family, to form the Amalgamated Copper Company. Amalgamated, which owned Anaconda, was a holding company organized to buy up other mining companies with the goal of gaining a monopoly over Montana’s copper mining. The War of the Copper Kings escalated into a battle for a monopoly over all of Montana’s mining industry. 8

Attempts by each faction to get the local and state government to support them was a key part of the War. This was important not only for blatantly political issues such as the fights over who would be Senator and the location of the state capitol, but also for economic issues such as disputes over mining claims. Both sides used a number of tactics to do this, including bribery, electioneering and other means. 9

Each side attempted to elect individuals to the legislature, judiciary, and other offices who would be more likely to side with them in the dispute than with their opponents. This process saw the formation of large electoral coalitions designed to support one side or the other, using fusion to merge parties, or factions of parties, into one ticket. Factions within both Republican and Democratic parties sided with both sides – there were “anti-trust Democrats” who supported Clark-Heinze and “independent Democrats” who supported Amalgamated/Anaconda with similar divisions among Republicans. Third parties often ‘fused’ with one side or another as well. 10

As the working class, most of whom were miners, constituted the largest group in Montana, both sides tried to woo workers onto their side. Mobilizing workers behind one’s own faction was valuable because they brought more votes (for electing sympathetic judges/lawmakers and wining the referendum on where the state capital would be), could be used to intimidate judges/lawmakers, and were deployed in violent clashes that eventually broke out between both factions. 11

In order to gain working class support, both factions offered workers benefits in exchange for loyalty. According to Montana historian K. Ross Toole, “when the War of the Copper Kings erupted Daly came to regard his employees as troops. They were to be well fed, well clothed, well treated, well paid – and they were to respond with their undivided loyalty.” Clark and Heinze took a similar attitude, attempting to cultivate the loyalty of workers to use against Anaconda/Amalgamated. 12

On June 13, 1900 Clark and Heinze announced they would grant an eight-hour day with no wage reduction to all workers in their mines and smelters as a way of persuading workers to side with them and not with Amalgamated/Anaconda. Eventually, Clark-Heinze’s granting of an eight-hour day forced Amalgamated/Anaconda’s mines & smelters to do the same. In February 1901 the state legislature passed a law giving the eight-hour day to all miners and smeltermen. 13

The trend towards corporate paternalism was enhanced by the fact that many Montanan copper capitalists leaned towards paternalism anyway:

Daly easily identified with his men, and they with him. Arguing that contented employees meant safer profits and bigger gains … Daly stoutly resisted any efforts to cut wages or discourage unionism. Other local employers, like W. A. Clark, generally shared this fatherly attitude towards labor. Montana workers … earned comparatively high wages; and, in contrast to Idaho or Colorado, they usually refrained from strikes and violence. 14

Although that attitude made corporate paternalism more likely, by itself it was not enough to bring it about. It also needed a favorable economic climate, which the War of the Copper Kings provided. Had that war not been going on, the market would have forced Montanan capitalists to adopt the same hostile attitude towards labor, with lower wages and worse working conditions, common in the country at the time. 15

Significant gains for the working class, like the eight-hour day, came due to years of struggle in most of the country. Miners and smeltermen in Montana got it without struggle, as a byproduct of the War of the Copper Kings. Montanan workers benefited from the unusually sharp divisions within the Montanan capitalist class. While capitalists in other states waged war on organized labor, Montanan capitalists waged war on each other.

The benefits Montanan workers gained and worker loyalty Montanan capitalists gained as a result of the War of the Copper Kings decreased class conflict in Montana. Because Montanan capitalists were more willing to give workers better wages, working conditions, and hours, workers were less likely to revolt. The fact that these benefits were gained without years of struggle only enhanced the effect. Capitalists’ mobilization of workers to support one side or another during the War, and their offering of various benefits to facilitate this process, helped create worker loyalty to their employers, which also helped decrease class conflict and forged a bond between workers and their employers.

Each faction of capitalists attempted to gain the loyalty of as many workers as it could, and in many instances succeeded in doing so. They encouraged workers to identify with their faction and to view other factions as “the Other.” The material benefits each faction offered were an important part of gaining worker support and loyalty since it made that faction look benevolent. Although originally created to use against rival capitalists, once created that loyalty had the effect of decreasing class conflict because loyal workers were less likely to rebel against their employers. 16

In Anaconda and Butte, ethnicity also played a role in encouraging working class conservatism. Marcus Daly was Irish as were most of his workers in Anaconda and especially in Butte. By offering “preferential treatment to Irish miners, joining their associations, paying for their churches, attending their wakes, and serving generally as an example of Irish enterprise, Daly blurred class distinctions and contributed to worker conservatism.” This was a bigger factor in Butte than Anaconda because Butte had a much larger Irish population, but still had an impact on Anaconda because it also had a large Irish population (especially before the 20th century). 17

Ethnicity was more of a factor in Butte and Anaconda than in Great Falls. A significant percentage of Local 16’s members had Irish surnames, but not the majority. Many of Local 16’s leaders were Irish, but the Irish did not monopolize leadership positions like they did in Local 1 and, to a lesser extent, Local 117. Although Great Falls did have a significant Irish population, it was not as heavily Irish as Butte or Anaconda. It experienced a wave of immigrants from East Europe starting in 1890, only a year after smelting in Great Falls began. Some of those immigrants joined Local 16. Butte eventually experienced a similar influx of Eastern Europeans, but not until years later. These demographic differences would later have a significant impact on the evolution of each local. 18

The final phase of the War of the Copper Kings came after Clark got out of the war, sold his mining properties, and finally managed to become one of Montana’s senators, leaving the conflict one between Heinze and Amalgamated/Anaconda. Heinze was more successful at getting the government on his side and used it to his advantage. Heinze began mining into Amalgamated/Anaconda’s claims, essentially stealing their copper, appealing to the “Apex law” as justification. He was able to do this because his friends, William Clancy and Edward Harney, were elected judges and sided with Heinze over Amalgamated/Anaconda in their numerous court battles. At one point there were almost 100 lawsuits between the two sides over conflicting mining claims. In one case, Amalgamated/Anaconda offered Harney a $250,000 bribe to rule in their favor, but he turned it down. Underground war broke out between the two sides where their mine shafts intersected, with workers from each company using jets of high pressure water, smudge fires, and dynamite against each other and attempting to flood each other’s mine shafts. 19

A key court case in this conflict was fought over the Parrot Mining Company, an Amalgamated subsidiary. Several of Heinze’s lieutenants purchased stock in the company and then went to court against Amalgamated, arguing that Amalgamated violated their rights as stockholders by managing Parrot in the interests of Amalgamated and its other subsidiaries, favoring one set of stock holders over another. Judge Clancy, not surprisingly, ruled against Amalgamated and in favor of Heinze - calling into question the legality of Amalgamated’s entire operation in Montana. 20

Although the Montana Supreme Court later overturned the ruling, Amalgamated/Anaconda was fed up with Heinze’s use of biased judges against them, sparking the Great Shutdown - the climax of the War of the Copper Kings. Amalgamated/Anaconda proceeded to shut down all of its operations in Montana, bringing most of Montana’s mining industry to a halt and throwing thousands of people out of work. Amalgamated/Anaconda demanded that the governor convene a special session of the legislature and pass a “fair trials bill” allowing litigants to change judges if the judge is biased against one of them. Many labor unions encouraged the government to do as Amalgamated/Anaconda wanted, a reflection of both their loyalty to their employer and their desire to get their jobs back. The governor and legislature had little choice in the manner, and did as Amalgamated demanded. 21

Deprived of his ability to use biased judges against Amalgamated/Anaconda, Heinze’s defeat was assured. He sold off his mining interests to Amalgamated and left for Wall Street. Monopoly reigned in Montana’s mining and smelting industry. In 1910 Amalgamated transferred all of its mining properties to Anaconda and in 1915 Amalgamated was abolished. 22

The Great Shut Down caused some to take a stronger anti-corporate (or anti-capitalist) stance. The company had essentially blackmailed the state into submission, which created resentment in some quarters. The Great Shutdown is dramatic proof of the radical leftist contention that the state under capitalism must act in the interests of big business, not “the people,” and some Montanans, such as members of the growing Socialist party, came to the same conclusion. Resentment towards Anaconda’s domination of the state was widespread for most of the century, even among non-radicals. 23

While the Great Shut Down caused many to become more hostile to corporate power, it failed to do so in the case of either the Butte Miners Union or the Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union. On October 27, 1903, five days after the Great Shutdown began, Local 16 held a special meeting “for the purpose of sending delegates to Helena to act in conjunction with a like delegation of the Butte Miners Union to urge special legislation to relieve the present situation now existing in the state in regard to mining and smelting industries.” Five delegates were elected and sent to Helena, encouraging the Governor to comply with Amalgamated’s demands. Delegates “reported that the Gov. received them very kindly and promised to give their request his earnest attention and consideration.” At their November 14th meeting a motion was carried, “that a committee of 3 be appointed by the chair to draft resolutions to the governor showing our appreciation of the way in which he has done during the shut down of Montana’s chief industries.” 24

The members of the Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union, like the members of the Butte Miners’ Union and many other labor organizations, sided with their own employers against rival employers. Encouraging the government to give in to Amalgamated’s demands was not totally surprising, since they were out of a job until the shut down ended, but there is no record of the local becoming more resentful or hostile towards its employer or becoming more radical due to the Great Shutdown.

If the Great Shutdown had any impact on labor militancy at all it was to decrease, not increase, it. The Great Shutdown demonstrated the great strength Anaconda had, strength that could potentially be used against the labor movement, just as it had been used against the state government, if it abandoned its conservatism. Due to its policy of paternalism, Anaconda did not use this strength against organized labor until a decade later, when that paternalism was in decline, but this still put some locals, including the Anaconda Mill and Smeltermens’ Union (Local 117), in a position where adopting conservatism was the only way to avoid being destroyed by the company.

The corporate paternalism engendered by the War of the Copper Kings continued after the war ended. Many aspects of it were already in law and others would have been difficult to quickly repeal. In many ways, the worker loyalty and lack of labor strife helped Anaconda, as it only had to deal with conservative unions reluctant to fight management rather than the militant unions many companies faced outside Montana. So long as it did not attack labor too rapidly, that conservatism would continue for years.

Due mainly to Anaconda’s corporate paternalism, Montana WFM locals, on average, tended to be more conservative than their counterparts in other states. Most of the violent clashes which played a major role in radicalizing the WFM – Cripple Creek, Coeur d’Alene, Leadville, and so on – happened outside Montana. Conditions within Montana and outside it were very different. Within Montana the working class made many gains without having to fight for it and were given incentives to be conservative and loyal to their employers. Outside Montana the WFM was repeatedly attacked. Rather than granting concessions in order to get workers on their side, many capitalists outside Montana waged war against the WFM. In states where the WFM was under attack, such as Colorado and Idaho, it defended itself and thereby ended up taking a more militant stance. In Montana it was not under such attack and therefore did not take as militant a position. 25

Numerous attacks on fellow WFM locals in Colorado did not cause either Local 1 or Local 16 to increase their militancy. In June 1904 the Great Falls Mill & Smeltermens Union received, “communications from Butte Miners Union asking this union to cooperate with them in a protest against the outrages perpetrated against our Bro[thers] in Colorado.” Given the timing, this almost certainly refers to the violent suppression of WFM strikes in Cripple Creek and Telluride as well as the general war being waged by the Colorado state government against the WFM. Local 1’s actions consisted of a mass meeting/rally that condemned the repression in Colorado and called on the Colorado government to cease its attacks on labor.

Local 1 wanted members of Local 16 to join the protest, but Local 16 decided to “send a telegram [to Butte] that we regret that we cannot attend their meeting” but endorsed their actions. Although Local 16 did not like the repression of the Colorado strikes, that repression failed to push the local in a more militant direction. They took no action over it, doing even less than conservative Butte. They were not the ones being shot at and Anaconda was not the one doing the shooting, thus repression in Colorado, and elsewhere, did not make them more hostile towards their own employers. 26

While the Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union stayed conservative for the entire time period, Butte eventually became more radical. Over the years the Butte Miners’ Union began splitting into two factions: the conservatives versus the progressives (also called radicals or revolutionists at different periods). The progressives criticized the conservatives for being too friendly with management and called for a more confrontational stance in order to fight for workers’ interests.

Internal BMU infighting and changes in city electoral politics reflected the emergence of a progressive faction to challenge the dominant conservatives. In late 1906 the BMU asked Anaconda to raise the standard wage from $3.50 a day to $4.00 a day. Anaconda countered with an offer to tie wages to the price of copper, with $3.50 a day as a guaranteed minimum wage regardless of the price of copper. Wages would increase if the price of copper increased, with an increase of 18 cents per pound required to raise wages to $4 per day. The BMU accepted the proposal and signed a contract with Anaconda, which was approved in a referendum by BMU members in 1907. This violated WFM policy of never signing a contract with employers, on the grounds that it unnecessarily tied labor’s hands and could weaken working class solidarity. In addition, most rank and file BMU members were misled into believing that the contract would give them a raise to $4 a day. The combination of violating the WFM’s no-contract policy and misleading members to think that they would get a raise out of the contract set off an uproar within the BMU. This discontent was a symptom of the local splitting into two factions and the emergence of a left-wing faction.

In 1911 the Socialist party’s nominee, Louis Duncan, was elected Mayor of Butte. Although the policies enacted by the Duncan administration were not very socialistic, basically consisting of the same municipal changes advocated by bourgeois reformers, it was still a major sign that part of Butte’s working class was drifting to the left. 27

The conflict between the progressives and the conservatives came to a head in 1914. The progressives proposed the union borrow the city’s voting machines for the upcoming election of union officers but the conservatives defeated the proposal. Alleging that the conservatives intended to rig the election, the progressives boycotted the election and eventually started organizing an alternative union – the Butte Mine Workers Union (BMWU), which was not affiliated with the WFM. 28

On June 13th riots erupted. Critics of the BMU’s conservative leadership attacked the BMU’s union hall, dynamited their safe, and two people ran off with the money inside. On June 24th progressives and conservatives fought again, this time resulting in the dynamiting and destruction of the union hall. By August the BMU was effectively dead and the BMWU was well on its way towards being a more militant replacement. 29

On August 30th the Anaconda employment office at the Parrott Mine in Butte was blasted by dynamite. The next day, the Governor declared the city in a “state of insurrection,” imposed martial law, and sent in the state militia. During period of martial law the state used censorship, arbitrary detentions, and other violations of civil liberties to break the back of the Butte left. The state imprisoned individuals imprisoned solely for making leftist statements, raided the headquarters of the Butte Mine Workers Union, and arrested several of its leaders. Anaconda declared an open shop in its Butte mines, leading to the death of the BMWU, while Mayor Duncan was impeached and removed from office. At the time, there was widespread speculation that Anaconda itself planted the bomb at the Parrot mine in order to get the Governor to declare martial law in Butte, but that has never been proven, although subsequent events implicate the company. 30

The events in Butte piqued the interest of Great Falls unionists. At the July 8, 1914 meeting of the Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union the local decided to “send a committee of 2 to Butte to investigate if possible the cause of the Labor Troubles of Butte #1.” Members of this committee were elected at the meeting, rather than being appointed by the chair. On July 22nd, “the Committee sent to Butte to investigate the Labor Troubles out there stated that nothing can be done in the way of compromises.” Nothing even remotely like what happened in Butte happened in Great Falls. Local 16 stayed conservative and Great Falls’ smelter workers remained submissive and loyal to Anaconda. 31

From 1914 until 1917 the cost of living in Butte rose while the open shop and labor peace reigned in the mines, until 1917 when workers rebelled against Anaconda again. On June 8th, 1917 a mining accident started a fire in Butte’s Speculator mine. The fire spread quickly, engulfing the mine in smoke and killing 164 men. Many corpses were found piled up in front of cement bulkheads blocking escape to other tunnels. State law required those bulkheads to have doors allowing miners to escape, but Anaconda never installed them. Spurred by this accident, workers went on strike and organized the Butte Metal Mine Workers Union (BMMWU). The BMMWU was not affiliated with the IWW, but it sympathized with it. On July 18th Frank Little, a member of the IWW’s general executive board, arrived in Butte to help with the strike and organizing effort. He gave speeches denouncing capitalism and opposing World War One on the grounds that workers should not kill each other for their capitalist masters. 32

On August 1st five masked men kicked down the door to the boardinghouse room Little was staying in and dragged him outside. They tied Little to the bumper of their car and drove to the Milwaukee bridge just outside Butte city limits, dragging Little on the road. They beat Little and then hung him from the bridge, with a sign attached to his body stating, “Others take notice, first and last warning 3-7-77.” On August 10th the Federal government deployed troops to Butte and on September 16th the strike ended in defeat for the miners. 33

Butte saw renewed labor unrest during 1918 and 1919. On September 12, 1918 The Daily Bulletin, a socialist newspaper, printed handbills joining with the IWW in calling for a general strike to protest the federal government’s repression of IWW organizers in Chicago. Local authorities and federal troops launched a crackdown that successfully prevented the strike, arresting the Bulletin’s editor and IWW members in Butte & Anaconda. Miners struck again on February 7, 1919. The Governor called in three additional companies of infantry to Butte, who used bayonets to wound nine strikers. The strike ended in defeat on February 17, 1919. The suppression of both strikes was very violent and brutal. 34

This period saw a great deal of repression in Montana, and nationally, directed against labor and the left. During the World War, a wave of hysteria swept across the state, and country, that was used to suppress dissent and organized labor, demonizing them as “unpatriotic.” Troops were used against an IWW lumber strike in spring 1917, resulting in the defeat of the strike. The Montana Criminal Syndicalism Act and the Montana Sedition Act, passed in February 1918, effectively outlawed all criticism of the government. On October 24th 1917 the local police raided the IWW headquarters in Anaconda. The first several years after the end of the war saw a similar anti-communist wave of hysteria, the Red Scare, which was used for the same purpose. 35

After the lynching of Frank Little, troops stayed in Butte until January 1921 and were repeatedly used against labor. On October 4, 1917 an IWW organizer in Butte was murdered. In 1918 the army dispersed a St. Patrick’s Day demonstration in order to prevent a union parade. Eight days later the army attacked the IWW union hall in Butte and arrested 41 people. In late 1918 the army engaged in mass arrests of dissidents without trial or hearing and extensive brutality against prisoners. Assaults by soldiers against miners, including veterans who had recently returned from the World War, occurred on a regular basis during the 1919 strike by the Butte Metal Mine Workers Union. In April 1920 the local police fired upon unionists, killing one and wounding fifteen. This repression was a major reason the strikes in Butte and elsewhere in Montana were defeated. 36

On August 13, 1917 a special committee from the Butte Metal Mine Workers Union spoke at the Great Fall Mill and Smelter Union’s regular meeting and asked for donations to support their struggle. In contrast to its usual practice of aiding striking unions, the local refused to give any donations to the Butte Metal Miners Union because they opposed the new union. They did not like the lynching of Frank Little but otherwise ignored the strike and surrounding events in Butte. The local ignored most subsequent labor unrest and repression in Butte, including the defeated 1918 attempt at a general strike in Butte. The 1919 Butte strike was endorsed by the Cascade County Trades and Labor Assembly but was otherwise ignored by Local 16. 37

Whereas the Butte Miners’ Union eventually became militant and went on strikes, the Great Falls Mill & Smeltermens’ Union stayed conservative for the whole period. The main reason for the divergence is a difference in demographics. The ethnic composition of Butte and Great Falls, and Locals 1 and 16, were dissimilar and changed differently over time.

For most of its history the Butte Miners’ Union, both leaders and rank and file, was predominantly Irish, which reflected the fact that Butte itself was predominantly Irish. And it was not just Butte’s workers who were Irish – Marcus Daly and the three heads of Anaconda that followed him were Irish, as was much of the boss class in Butte’s mines. In 1900 ninety percent of Butte’s miners were Irish.

Many, both workers and bosses, were members of Irish ethnic associations, such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians and the Robert Emmet Literary Association. These associations tended to operate as informal job placement centers; connections forged through the associations were used by Irish workers to find jobs and by Irish bosses to insure a supply of steady workers. Workers in these associations gained access to more and better jobs than those outside it, turning them into a higher-ranking stratum of workers above other workers, an aristocracy of labor. Anaconda discriminated against non-Irish workers in other ways as well, such as by shutting down on Irish holidays but not the holidays of other ethnicities. The settled, more stable, Irish worker was more likely to be a member of these ethnic associations than transient Irish labor, and so this aristocracy of labor was largely made up of stable Irish workers rather than transient Irish workers. 38

The eventual infighting of the Butte Miners’ Union and the events of 1914 were largely the result of an ethnic conflict and the decline of this Irish aristocracy of labor. Over time a kind of “generation gap” emerged within the Butte Irish community. The children of Butte’s Irish immigrants were less likely to work in the mines, choosing to look for work above ground, and were not always as focused on their Irish heritage as their parents. Partly as a result of this, Anaconda started turning away from the Irish community as a source of labor, instead hiring immigrants of other nationalities and transient laborers.

A new wave of immigration brought many Finns, Italians, and East Europeans to Butte, many of whom took the place of Irish miners. As a result, the dominant position of settled Irish workers was threatened and began to decline. They reacted in a way not uncommon to groups whose privileged position is threatened: they whined about the “Bohunk invasion” and condemned “European Chinamen” for taking their jobs, leading ultimately to a clash between the two groups. 39

The conservative faction was predominantly drawn from stable Irish while the progressives were largely made up of Finns and other new immigrants as well as transient laborers. The Irish associations and strong Irish identification of the stable Irish pushed them in a more conservative direction because their Irish bosses, including the first 4 heads of Anaconda, were also Irish who shared similar values and belonged to the same associations. They fraternized and identified with their Irish bosses. When a group identity puts both Irish workers and bosses together and views non-Irish as ‘Other,’ as the stable Irish tended to do, then class conflict is less likely than if a group identity labels workers of all ethnicities as ‘us’ and bosses, regardless of nationality, as ‘Other.’

Unlike the stable Irish, the East European immigrants and transient laborers came from the lower levels of Butte’s working class hierarchy and so tended to be more radical. As the conflict between these two groups deepened, Butte’s working class polarized and those on the lower levels of the hierarchy were pushed further left. This was enhanced by the fact that a significant portion of the new immigrants were already radicals of one type or another. 40

In 1912 Anaconda fired roughly five hundred alleged Socialists, almost all of whom were Finns. The Finns appealed to the Butte Miners’ Union to go on strike to force the company to give their jobs back and repel this attack by the company on fellow workers. The union held a referendum and the proposal to go on strike was defeated. Ethnic conflict interfered with working class solidarity and saw the conservative Irish workers hang their Socialist Finn comrades out to dry. Later, Anaconda rehired some of the fired Socialists, claiming that overzealous foremen – who happened to be Irish – had fired more workers than were politically necessary. 41

In addition, it must be noted that Anaconda was a very different kind of company in 1914 than when originally formed. It was now a modern corporation responsible to stockholders with the goal of maximizing profits at all costs. It no longer had to deal with the labor shortages and competition for labor’s favor by rivals that Daly did. Although the corporate paternalism that evolved mainly as a result of the War of the Copper Kings could not be repealed overnight (some of it was already written into law and others had become standard practice that would cause significant resistance if abolished overnight) there was no longer the same need to avoid alienating labor and gain worker loyalty. As a result, when given the opportunity to use ethnic divisions and martial law to destroy Butte unionism, Anaconda took full advantage of it.

If it ever became more radical or militant, the Butte Miners Union, or a successor, had the potential to exert a great deal of power against Anaconda because of its huge size and because it organized the rich copper mines of Butte that were so central to Anaconda’s profit margin (especially before they acquired the Chuquicamata, Chile mines in the 1920s). Eliminating that one local and maintaining an open shop in Butte’s mines went a long way towards protecting Anaconda against any kind of labor action. Without the Butte mines going on strike as well, it would be very difficult for strikes in Great Falls, or elsewhere in Montana, to win against Anaconda. The decline of paternalism ultimately encouraged the growth of radicalism.

This change in corporate policy is the most common explanation given for the end of labor conservatism in Butte. Most writings on Butte labor in this period claim that the original conservatism was caused by the corporate paternalism brought on by the War of the Copper Kings but the end of that war caused Anaconda’s paternalism to decline, which led to a radicalization of Butte workers. This is the standard theory given in general histories of Montana and numerous specialized works. Although there is much in this “orthodox” theory that is correct, it lacks comparative focus and cannot explain why the decline of Anaconda’s corporate paternalism led to different results in different parts of Montana. If the decline of corporate paternalism was the only factor then it should have had the same results in Great Falls and Anaconda as in Butte, but it had very different results.

Another theory is that the destruction of the Butte Miners Union and subsequent events were the result of an IWW conspiracy to destroy the BMU. The only real evidence of this is that many people, especially opponents of the Progressives, believed it at the time. The theory was alleged in many newspaper articles and other primary sources, but none of those actually gave much in the way of evidence supporting the theory. There were members of the IWW among the Progressives but they were a small minority and could not have pulled something like this off by themselves. This “IWW conspiracy” theory appears to have originated more as a result of a search for scapegoats and a way to demonize the Progressives than a fair evaluation of the evidence. Not surprisingly, this theory is not very popular among professional historians, although there is one Master’s dissertation by Richard J. Hoss that argues in favor of it. 42

A third theory is advanced in The Butte Irish by David Emmons. Emmons emphasizes the role of ethnicity in Butte, arguing that its conservatism was a result of the stable Irish acting as an aristocracy of labor, identifying with its Irish employers, and that the end of this Irish domination brought about the end of labor conservatism in Butte. He does not completely discount the role of the War of the Copper Kings and subsequent decline of paternalism, but relegates them to smaller secondary roles and emphasizes ethnicity instead.

Like the “orthodox” theory, there are elements of truth in this theory but it also suffers from a lack of a comparative focus. Emmons ethnic-oriented theory cannot explain the original conservatism of WFM Montana locals outside Butte, like Great Falls, because many had different ethnic compositions; his theory only explains conservatism within Butte. It is inadequate because that conservatism extended beyond Butte, into areas where the ethnic factors Emmons claims caused labor conservatism in Butte did not exist. His focus on ethnicity is still on the right track, as it definitely played a major role in the end of the Butte Miners Union and subsequent events. As the corporate paternalism brought by the War of the Copper Kings declined, different places reacted in different ways. Differences in demographics and ethnic relations were the primary factor in determining if and how organized labor changed as a result of this decline.

The Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union did not experience the changes in ethnic composition that played such a large role in the destruction of the Butte Miners’ Union, and accompanying radicalization of Butte’s miners, and so avoided the same fate. Irish members of Local 16 never had the kind of dominance that Irish members of Locals 1 and 117 had. There were significant numbers of Irish, but they did not dominate the membership or the leadership in the way the Irish dominated the Butte Miners’ Union and Anaconda Mill and Smeltermens’ Union. The local always consisted of a mixture of ethnicities, none of which were able to elevate themselves into an aristocracy of labor like the stable Irish in Butte.

Nor did Local 16 experience an influx of new immigrants upsetting the old order and bringing in more radical ideas, which was a major factor in both Anaconda and Butte. East Europeans did immigrate to Great Falls and work in the smelters – but they started going to Great Falls in the 1890s, well before East European immigrants went to Butte or Anaconda in large numbers. In the 1890s the War of the Copper Kings was still on in full force and the corporate paternalism brought with it was still being built so those East European immigrants in Great Falls would have been affected by it, becoming loyal to the company. 43

The Great Falls Mill & Smeltermens’ Union did not go the way of Butte because no single ethnic group dominated the union and because Great Falls did not experience the same flows of immigrants, both of which prevented the kind of ethnic conflict that destroyed the Butte Miners’ Union. In Butte, ethnic conflict ended conservative domination and cleared the path for more radical & militant attempts to organize, all of which were defeated. Local 16 did not experience the kind of ethnic conflict Local 1 did, which both prevented the local from being ripped apart like Local 1 and insured that it stayed conservative for the entire time period.

Events in Anaconda had several differences compared to Great Falls and Butte, including an early socialist victory. It shared the same conservative tendencies but with some differences. In 1903, near the end of the War of the Copper Kings, Anaconda elected John W. Frinke of the Socialist party mayor – a major sign of a radical upsurge in the town. However, the Socialist administration was unable to implement its program due to opposition from the city council, government bureaucracy, and the Anaconda Copper Mining Company. The company began firing Socialists and instituted a blacklist, which permanently wiped out the Socialist party in Anaconda and lead to their defeat in the 1905 elections. 44

The early socialist upsurge was the result of demographic shifts (as was later the case with Butte) and Anaconda’s identity as a working class town. The Socialist party’s victory coincided with a wave of new immigrants similar to what happened in Butte a decade later. Anaconda’s changes in demographics look very similar to Butte’s, just shifted a decade earlier. The influx of new immigrants upset the old order and brought in more radical ideas, as it did in Butte. In addition, Anaconda had a strong working class identity, especially compared to Great Falls. Heightened class-consciousness made the city more open to left-wing radicalism, which helped the socialists win the election and spread their ideas. 45

Anaconda avoided the destructive inter-ethnic conflicts that destroyed the Butte Miners Union because of differences in ethnicity. The Irish were by far the largest ethnic group in Anaconda, but compared to Butte they did not make up as large a percentage of the population. Probably more importantly, Anaconda’s smaller size encouraged different ethnic groups to intermingle and work together. This “fostered cultural exchange instead of neighborhood enclaves; diverse residents lived, worked, worshiped, and played with each other. At times, residents identified by ethnicity, … but more often they claimed identities as white or nonwhite workers, men or women, Catholics or non-Catholics.” As a result, they avoided the inter-ethnic conflict that destroyed Local 1, allowing Local 117 to survive the entire period. Anaconda became more radical as a result of new immigrants, just as Butte later did, but due to this ethnic intermingling the change was done without the ethnic fighting seen in Butte. 46

Anaconda’s shift towards radicalism as a result of changing immigration came at a very different time than when Butte did the same thing. This was the end of the War of the Copper Kings; corporate paternalism was in full force. The company was not going to risk losing important working class support just to wipe out Local 117, as it would later do to Local 1. At the same time the socialist administration threatened the company’s interests and could not be tolerated. It could have wiped out Local 117 in the same way it destroyed Anaconda’s Socialist movement (the local was too weak with too few members to defeat the company in the middle of a company town) but, following its paternalistic policy, chose not do so. Had the local threatened company interests by taking a more radical stance the company probably would have destroyed it. Becoming conservative was the only way local 117 could survive, as a radical local would have been wiped out. A combination of intimidation and paternalism ended the radical upsurge and caused the local to become conservative. 47

Over the next decade the new immigration continued and the company’s paternalism eroded. Local 117 stayed conservative, but the underpinnings of that conservatism were slowly weakening. When the Butte Metal Mine Workers organized and went on strike in 1917 it inspired smelter workers in Anaconda to do the same. A faction left the Anaconda Mill and Smeltermens’ Union, formed their own union, and went on strike. The state used troops against the strike, as it did in Butte. The strike was defeated, although there was more labor unrest over the next several years, which the company also defeated (as in Butte). Local 117 was by this time thoroughly dominated by the company and stayed conservative, refusing to join the strikes. 48

A secondary factor in keeping Local 16 conservative, and not following Butte or Anaconda’s example, was the unique way Great Falls developed. Unlike most western towns, Great Falls was planned from the start, not your typical boom-bust town founded by speculators. Paris Gibson visited the Great Falls of the Missouri in the early 1880s and came to the conclusion that the location’s environment and natural resources would someday make the area into a major city, a “new Minneapolis.” He got backing from a railroad capitalist, James J. Hill, and founded the city in 1884. 49

Instead of the common haphazard development of most western towns, founded by speculators, Great Falls followed plans created by Paris Gibson at the beginning of its existence. His plans were detailed enough that parts of it were still being used for city planning in the 1970s. 50

Gibson and Hill attempted to recruit “middle class” individuals, professionals, to come to Great Falls. They directly approached doctors, lawyers and other professionals about moving to their city. This was partially successful, although a significant percentage of Great Falls’ early population came from surrounding towns that had gone into decline due to the railroad replacing earlier forms of transportation. Partly due to this, Great Falls became “an ideal middle-class city without a boot hill or a hanging tree.” 51

Gibson aimed to create a community of contented citizens. His plan including making his city as beautiful as possible by encouraging clean streets, public parks, planting trees, and other civic improvements. He “believed that beautiful surroundings had a morally beneficial impact on residents” and that, “capitalists, professionals, wage earners, and merchants ought to be united by a ‘common bond’ of building a beautiful city.” He thought beautification of Great Falls provided “uplifting and reforming influences” especially among the poor, who would therefore be less likely to revolt. Beautification, he thought, would also help attract so-called “intelligent people” (ie. professionals) and a “desirable” population from the East, both of which were economically better off and less likely to revolt. In 1909 the Anaconda Standard wrote that Great Falls’ pleasant surroundings made even, “the modest home of the workingman as attractive as the more pretentious home of the wealthy merchant.” 52

Gibson believed workers should be paid a fair wage, but feared labor unrest might threaten Great Falls’ future. He wanted capitalists to treat workers fairly but also wanted workers to stay away from any kind of radicalism or militancy. That policy was a way of dampening class conflict. 53

The net effect of all this was to decrease class-consciousness and class conflict. If workers form a “common bond” with capitalists then they are less likely to rebel against those capitalists. Paying workers a fair wage and giving them decent living quarters – unlike what was done in many other areas of the time – can also decrease working class rebellion. Thus, during a railroad strike in the 1890s, “the strikers found little sympathy, except among the few clothing merchants and a few cheap politicians.” 54

The effect of this should not be overstated, though, as not everyone bought into it. There were several strikes in Great Falls, although it was not a location of huge labor unrest. It was, however, widespread enough that some bought into it and this reduced the overall level of class conflict in Great Falls. It was a secondary factor that helped prevent Local 16 from going the way of Butte.

Events that might have pushed Local 16 towards a more militant position consistently failed to do so. In the Great Shutdown the local campaigned for the state government to give in to their employer. They condemned the violent repression of the WFM in Colorado but that repression did not prompt them to change their conservatism. When the Butte Miners’ Union tore itself apart while moving leftward they sent a committee to investigate but did not move leftward themselves. In 1917 they gave the Butte Metal Mine Workers Union the cold shoulder. In all cases, these events failed to make the local more militant. Local 16 was a conservative union that consistently avoided militant class struggle, challenging the status quo, any kind of direct action, or confrontation with their employer.

The local indirectly contributed a conservative leader to the national WFM. In 1898 the Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union elected Charles Mahoney president. He later moved to Butte and join a WFM local there. Mahoney rose in the ranks and by 1906 had become a Vice President of the WFM. He was acting President while President Moyer and several other WFM leaders were jailed on charges of attempting to assassinate the former governor of Idaho, charges they were later acquitted of.

Mahoney was a leader of the conservative faction of the WFM and used his position to advance against the radicals, playing a significant role in the WFM’s break with the IWW. He was acting chairman of the IWW’s 1906 convention, which saw a major clash between conservative and revolutionary factions in the IWW and was a major step on the WFM’s road to leaving the IWW. In 1907 Mahoney, still acting President, succeeded in withdrawing the WFM from the IWW. Mahoney’s connection to Great Falls illustrates both the impact of the Montana WFM on the national WFM and the conservatism of Local 16. 55

The main cause of this conservatism lies in the corporate paternalism adopted by Anaconda as a result of the War of the Copper Kings. Even after the war was over, the effects of it persisted for years and put most Montana WFM locals on the conservative end of the spectrum. In Butte, this conservatism collapsed primarily due to ethnic conflicts and an influx of new immigrants who disrupted the situation and were more open to radical ideas. Great Falls did not have the same ethnic composition and conflicts, or experience the same immigration patterns as Butte. As a result, Local 16 did not experience the same kind of events that happened in Butte. In short: Local 1 experienced an influx of radical Finns, and other immigrants, which disrupted the old order and pushed things in a more radical direction but those radical Finns did not join Local 16 in enough numbers to effect a similar change. Reinforced by the unique way Great Falls developed, local unions leaned in a more conservative direction.

Sources Consulted

I. Primary Sources

Bureau of the Census. Twelfth Census of the United States: 1900.

Bureau of the Census Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910.

Byrnes, Michael and Rickey, Les. The truth about the lynching of Frank Little. Butte: Old Butte Publisher, 1921.

Cascade County Coal Operators Association. The Coal Strike. Great Falls: Cascade County Coal Operators Association, 1922.

Cascade County Trades and Labor Assembly. Receipts and Disbursements. Western Federation of Miners/International Union of Mine, Mill and Smeltermen collection. Archives, Norlin Library. University of Colorado at Boulder.

Edmunds, Fred, et al. “Charlie Russell and Great Falls,” Montana, 34(3), 80-83.

Gibson, Paris. The Founding of Great Falls Montana and some of its early records. No Publisher listed, 1914.

Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union. Membership Books. Western Federation of Miners/International Union of Mine, Mill and Smeltermen collection. Archives, Norlin Library. University of Colorado at Boulder.

Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union. Minute Books. Western Federation of Miners/International Union of Mine, Mill and Smeltermen collection. Archives, Norlin Library. University of Colorado at Boulder.

Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union. Receipts and Financial Records. Western Federation of Miners/International Union of Mine, Mill and Smeltermen collection. Archives, Norlin Library. University of Colorado at Boulder.

Great Falls Public Library. A History of Great Falls Montana. Great Falls: Great Falls Public Library, 1962.

Kaufman, Stuart; Albert, Peter; and Pallading, Grace (ed.). The Samuel Gompers Papers. 9 Vols. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999.

Montana Historical Society (ed.). Not in Precious Metals Alone – A Manuscript History of Montana. Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 1976.

Western Federation of Miners. Miners’ Magazine. Western Federation of Miners/International Union of Mine, Mill and Smeltermen collection. Archives, Norlin Library. University of Colorado at Boulder.

Wiprud, Theodore. “Butte: A Troubled Labor Paradise as a corporal saw it,” Montana, 21(4), 31-38.

II. Secondary Sources

Aarstad, Richard R. "Montana's Other Strike: The 1917 IWW Timber Strike In The Kootenai Valley." Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Montana, 2000.

Adamic, Louis. Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence in America. New York: Viking, 1931.

Aiken, Ellen Schoening. “The United Mine Workers of America Moves West.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 2002.

Anderson, Karen. “Work, Gender, and Power in the American West,” Pacific Historical Review, 10(3), 481-499.

Beshoar, Barron. Out of the Depths. Denver: Golden Bell Press, 1942.

Baack, Audy. "The downfall of the Butte Miners' Union: a community of interests torn asunder." Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Harvard University, 1994.

Bakken, Gordon Morris. “Was There Arsenic in the Air? Anaconda Versus the Farmers of Deer Lodge Valley,” Montana, 41(3), 30-41.

Bakken, Gordon Morris and Bakken, J. Elwood. “The Goldfish Died: Great Falls, Fort Benton, and the Great Flood of 1908,” Montana, 51(4), 38-51.

Bardwell, George and Seligson, Harry. Organized Labor and Political Action in Colorado: 1900-1960. Denver: University of Denver, 1959.

Burke, William A. Copper Camp New York: Hastings House, 1943.

Brown, Ronald C. Hard-Rock Miners: The Intermountain West, 1860-1920. College Station and London: Texas A&M University Press, 1979.

Brundage, David. “Respectable Radicals: Denver’s Irish Land League in the early 1880s,” Journal of the West, 31(2), 52-58.

Calvert, Jerry. The Gibraltar: Socialism and Labor in Butte, Montana 1895-1920. Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 1988.

Calvert, Jerry. “The Rise and Fall of Socialism in a Company Town, 1902-1905,” Montana, 36(4): 2-13.

Conlin, Joseph (ed.). At the Point of Production. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1981.

Clark, Paul. The Miners’ Fight for Democracy. Ithaca: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1981.

Dubofsky, Melvyn. We Shall Be All: A History of the Industrial Workers of the World. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

Dubofsky, Melvyn. The State and Labor in Modern America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994.

Emmons, David. “An Aristocracy of Labor: The Irish Miners of butte, 1880-1914” Labor History, 28(3), 275-306.

Emmons, David. The Butte Irish. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

Emmons, David. “Constructed Province: History and the Making of the Last American West,” Western Historical Quarterly, 25(4), 437-460.

Emmons, David. “Immigrant Workers and Industrial Hazards: The Irish Miners of Butte, 1880-1919,” Journal of American Ethnic History, 51(1), 41-64.

Everett, George “’The Gibraltar of Unionism’: The Labor Heritage of Butte, Montana,” Labor’s Heritage, 10(1), 4-19.

Fabry, Judith. “Enlightened Selfishness: Great Falls and the Sun River Project” Montana, 44(1), 14-27.

Finn, Janet Leigh Tracing the Veins: Of Copper, Culture, and Community from Butte to Chuquicamata. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998.

Finn, Janet Leigh. “Intimate Strangers: The Interlocking Histories of Butte, Montana and Chuquicamata, Chile,” Montana, 48(3), 22-39.

Flaherty, Stacy A. “Boycott in Butte: Organized Labor and the Chinese Community, 1896-1897,” Montana, 37(1), 34-47.

Frisch, Paul Andrew. “The ‘Gibraltar of unionism’: the working class at Butte, Montana, 1878-1906.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Los Angeles, 1992.

Foster, James C. “A True Blue Labor Organizer: Edward Crough and the Western Federation of Miners, 1907-1920,” Labor’s Heritage, 6(2), 4-21.

Freedman, Brendan. “A Most Commendable Spirit.” Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Colorado, 1998.

Furdell, William and Furdell, Elizabeth. Great Falls: A Pictorial History. Norfolk: Donning Company, no date listed.

Garrity, Donald. "The Frank Little episode and the Butte labor troubles of 1917." Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Carroll College, 1957.

Giesen, Carol. Coal Miners’ Wives. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1995.

Glasscock, C.B. The War of the Copper Kings. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1935.

Great Falls Tribune. “One Hundred Years of Great Falls History,” Great Falls Tribune, 25 March 1984.

Gutfeld, Arnon. "The Butte labor strikes and company retaliation during World War I." Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Montana, 1967.

Gutfeld, Arnon. Montana’s Agony: Years of War and Hysteria, 1917-1921. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1979.

Gutfeld, Arnon. “The Murder of Frank Little: Radical Labor Agitation in Butte, Montana, 1917,” Labor History, 10(2), 177-192.

Gutfeld, Arnon. “The Speculator Disaster in 1917: Labor Resurgences at Butte, Montana,” Arizona and the West, 11(1), 27-38.

Gutfeld, Arnon. “Western Justice and the Rule of Law: Bourquin on Loyalty, the ‘Red Scare,’ and Indians,” Pacific Historical Review, 65(2), 85-106.

Hamilton, James. From Wilderness to Statehood. Portland: Binfords and Mort, 1957.

Harrington, James D. “A Reexamination of the Granite Mountain-Speculator Fire,” Montana, 48(3), 62-69.

Harper, Daniel. “Survival in an Age of Industrial Warfare.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado Boulder, 2000.

Heims, Candi. “The Chamber of Commerce and the Building of Great Falls, Montana 1888-1945,” Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Arizona State University, 1992.

Herr, Elizabeth. “The Census, Estimations Biases, and Female Labor-Force Participation Rates in 1880 Colorado,” Historical Methods, 28(4), 167-181.

Holbrook, Stewart. The Rocky Mountain Revolution. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1956.

Hoss, Richard J. "Causes underlying the destruction of the Butte Miners' Union in 1914," Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Washington, 1957.

Huggard, Christopher. “Introduction: Southwestern Mining in the Twentieth Century,” New Mexico Historical Review, 69(4), 317-321.

Isern, Thomas D. Bull Threshers and Bindlestiffs: Harvesting and Threshing on the North American Plains. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1990.

Jameson, Elizabeth. All That Glitters. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1998.

Jameson, Elizabeth and Armitage, Susan (eds.). Writing the Range: Race, Class, and Culture in the Women’s West. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997.

Jensen, Vernon H. Heritage of Conflict: Labor Relations in the Nonferrous Metals Industry up to 1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1950.

Jensen, Vernon H. Lumber and Labor. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1945.

Johnson, Carrie. Electrical Power, Copper, and John D. Ryan. Montana 38(4), 24-36.

Kemp, Donald. Silver, Gold and Black Iron. Denver: Sage Books, 1960.

Kelly, Matt. Anaconda, Montana's copper city. Anaconda: Soroptimist Club of Anaconda, 1983.

Knight, Harold. Working In Colorado. Boulder: University of Colorado, 1971.

Klassen, Henry. “The Early Growth of the Conrad Banking Enterprise in Montana, 1880-1914,” Great Plains Quarterly, 17(1), 49-62.

Lang, William L. “Corporate Point Men and the Creation of the Montana Central Railroad, 1882-87,” Great Plains Quarterly, 10(3), 152-166.

Langdon, Emma. The Cripple Creek Strike. Denver: Great Western Publishing Co, 1905.

Leonard, Stephen. “Bloody August: The Denver Tramway Strike of 1920,” Colorado Heritage, Summer 1995, 18-31.

Lindsay, John. Amazing Experiences of a Judge. Philadelphia: Dorrance and Company, 1939.

Lingenfelter, Richard. The Hardrock Miners. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974.

Lewis, Ronald. Black Coal Miners in America. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1987.

Lovin, Hugh T. (ed.) Labor in the West. Manhattan, Kansas: Sunflower University Press, 1989.

Macpherson, James. "Butte miners' union: an analysis of its development and economic bargaining position." Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Montana state university, 1949.

Marcosson, Isaac F. Anaconda. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1957.

Malone, Michael P. The Battle for Butte: Mining and Politics on the Northern Frontier. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1981.

Malone, Michael P. and Dougherty, Dianne G. “Montana’s Political Culture: A Century of Evolution,” Montana 31(1), 44-58.

Malone, Michael P. and Roeder, Richard B. Montana: A History of Two Centuries. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1976.

McDonald, Verlaine Stoner. “’A Paper of, by, and for the People: The Producers News and the Farmers’ Movement in Northeastern Montana, 1918-1937,” Montana, 48(4), 18-33.

McGinn, Elinor. “Trying to Profit: Inmate Labor at Canon City, 1872-1927,” Colorado Heritage, 1987 (2), 15-24.

McGovern, George & Guttridge, Leonard. The Great Coalfied War. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972.

McGuire, Randall H. and Reckner, Paul. “The Unromatic West: Labor, Capital and Struggle,” Historical Archaeology, 36(3), 44-58.

McNelis, Sarah. Copper King at War. University of Montana: University of Montana Press, 1968.

Mellinger, Philip. Race and Labor in Western Copper: The Fight for Equality, 1896-1918. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1995.

Mercier, Laurie. Anaconda: Labor, Community, and Culture in Montana’s Smelter City. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001.

Murphy, Mary. Mining Cultures: Men, Women, and Leisure in Butte 1914-41. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997.

Neuschatz, Michael. The Golden Sword: The Coming of Capitalism to the Colorado Mining Frontier. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1986.

No Author Listed. “Great Falls History.” Available from http://www.bigskyfishing.com/Montana-Info/great-falls-history.shtm Internet. Accessed 20 September 2004.

Norwood, Stephen H. Strikebreaking & Intimidation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

Papanikolas, Zeese. Buried Unsung. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1982.

Peck, Gunther. Reinventing Free Labor. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Petrik, Paula. No Step Backward. Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 1987.

Pickett, Evelyne Stitt. “Hoboes Across the Border: A Comparison of Itinerant Cross-border Laborers between Montana and Western Canada,” Montana, 49(1), 18-31.

Powell, Allan Kent. “Labor’s Fight for Recognition in the Western Coalfields,” Journal of the West, 25(2), 20-26.

Pratt, Willaim C. “Rural Radicalism on the Northern Plains 1912-1950,” Montana, 42(1), 42-55.

Prodgers, Jeanette. Butte-Anaconda Almanac: A Day by Day History of Montana's Two Greatest Mining & Smelting Towns. Butte: Butte Historical Society, 1991.

Quivik, Fredric. “Early Steel Transmission Towers and Energy for Montana’s Copper Industry,” Montana, 38(4), 67-69.

Rader, Benjamin G. “The Montana Lumber Strike of 1917,” Pacific Historical Review, 36(2), 189-207.

Robbins, William G. “The Deconstruction of a Capitalist Patriarch: The Life and Times of Samuel T. Hauser,” Montana, 42(4), 20-33.

Rocha, Guy Louis. “The IWW and the Boulder Canyon Project: The Final Death Throes of American Syndicalism,” Nevada Historical Quarterly, 21(1), 2-24.

Roeder, Richard. “Joseph Kinsey Howard and His Vision of the West,” Montana, 30(1), 2-11.

Roeder, Richard. “A Settlement on the Plains: Paris Gibson and the Building of Great Falls,” Montana, 42(4): 4-19.

Ronning, Gerald. “’I Belong in this World’: Native Americanisms and the Western Industrial Workers of the World, 1905-1917.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 2002.

Rudd, Sarah. “Harmonizing Corrido and Union Song at the Ludlow Massacre,” Western Folklore, 61(1), 21-42.

Sampson, Joanna. “Strikebreaker!” Journal of the West, 30(4), 91-97.

Sales, Reno H. Underground Warfare at Butte. Caldwell: Caldwell Printers, 1964.

Schwantes, Carlos. Hard Traveling: A Portrait of Work Life in the New Northwest. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.

Seligson, Harry and Bardwell, George E. Labor-Management Relations in Colorado. Denver: Sage Books, 1961.

Shoebotham, H. Minar. Anaconda: Life of Marcus Daly the Copper King. Harrisburg: The Stackpole Company, 1956.

Shovers, Brian. "Miners, managers, and machines: industrial accidents and occupational disease in the Butte underground, 1880-1920." Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Montana State University, 1987.

Shovers, Brian. “The Perils of Working in the Butte Underground: Industrial Fatalities in the Copper Mines, 1880-1920,” Montana, 37(2), 26-39.

Smith, Norma. "The rise and fall of the Butte Miners' Union." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Montana State University, 1961.

Smith, Phyllis. Once A Coal Miner. Boulder: Pruett Publishing Company, 1989.

Spence, Clark C. Montana: A Bicentennial History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1978.

Stegner, S. Page. “Protest Songs from the Butte Mines,” Western Folklore, 26(3), 167-167.

Suggs, George. Colorado’s War on Militant Unionism. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1972.

Suggs, George. “Militant Western Labor Confronts the Hostile State: A Case Study,” Western Historical Quarterly, 2(4), 385-400.

Taylor, Quintard. In Search of the Racial Frontier: African Americans in the American West, 1528-1990. New York: W.W. Norton, 1998.

Toole, K Ross. "A history of the Anaconda Copper Mining Company: a study in the relationships between a state and its people and a corporation, 1880-1950." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Los Angeles, 1954.

Toole, K. Ross. Twentieth Century Montana: A State of Extremes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972.

Venn, George A. “The Wobblies and Montana’s Garden City,” Montana, 21(4), 18-30.

Wells, Merle W. “The Western Federation of Miners,” Journal of the West, 12(1), 18-35.

West, Carroll Van West. “Marcus Daly and Montana: one Man’s Imprint on the Land,” Montana, 37(1), 60-62.

White, Richard. “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own”: A New History of the American West. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.

White, W. Thomas. “Boycott: The Pullman Strike in Montana,” Montana, 24(4), 2-13.

White, W. Thomas. “Commonwealth or Colony? Montana and the Railroads in the First Decade of Statehood,” Montana, 38(4), 12-23.

White, W. Thomas. “Paris Gibson, James J. Hill & the ‘New Minneapolis’: the Great Falls Water Power and Townsite Company,” Montana, 33(3), 60-69.

White, W. Thomas. “Railroad Labor Protests, 1894-1917: From Community to Class in the Pacific Northwest,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly, 75(1), 13-21.

Wyman, Mark. Hard Rock Epic. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1979.

Zinn, Howard; Frank, Dana; and Kelley, Robin. Three Strikes. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.

Notes

1 Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens Union Minutes, v. 243, Western Federation of Miners/International Union of Mine, Mill and Smeltermen Collection, Archives, Norlin Library, University of Colorado at Boulder, p. 1 [hereafter cited as GFMSU]; Jerry Calvert, The Gibraltar (Helena: Montana Historical Society Press, 1988), 16-17; Ibid. 32-33; GFMSU v. 244, p. 156; Ibid v. 245 p. 108.

2 George Everett, “The Gibraltar of Unionism,” Labor’s Heritage, 10.1: 4-19; Jeanette Prodgers, Butte-Anaconda Almanac (Butte: Butte Historical Society, 1991), p. 4.

3 Ibid., p. 4; Matt Kelly, Anaconda, Montana’s Smelter City (Anaconda: Soroptimist Club of Anaconda, 1983), p. 3-8.

4 Fabry, Judith, “Enlightened Selfishness: Great Falls and the Sun River Project,” Montana: The Magazine of Western History, 44.1: p. 14-27.

5 GFMSU, v. 247, p. 292-300.

6 GFMSU, v. 243, p. 56-57

7 C.B. Glasscock, The War of the Copper Kings (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1935), p. 117-131, 151-201.

8 Michael Malone, The Battle for Butte (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1981), p. 131-158.

9 Sarah McNelis, Copper King at War (University of Montana: University of Montana Press, 1968), p. 93-119.

10 Calvert, the Gibraltar p. 18-19.

11 Malone, Battle for Butte p. 151.

12 K. Ross Toole, Twentieth Century Montana: A State of Extremes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972) p. 124.

13 Paul Andrew, “The ‘Gibraltar of unionism’: the working class at Butte, Montana, 1878-1906,” (Ph.D. diss.. University of California Los Angeles) p. 319-322.

14 Michael P. Malone and Richard B. Roeder, Montana: A History of Two Centuries (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1976) p. 156

15 Ordinarily, companies that voluntarily give their workers better pay, working conditions, etc. will have higher labor costs and therefore be out-competed by companies that do not. Over time, all companies are forced to do the same thing or go out of business. Organized labor, of course, can change this by insuring that the greater unrest resulting from not giving workers better pay, conditions, etc. is more costly than meeting those demands. During the War of the Copper Kings the factions were engaged in a battle where the winner would have a monopoly and the loser would go out of business. Because gaining working class support was important in this conflict, giving better pay, working hours, etc. now gave the faction that did so an edge over their rival faction – inverting the usual pressure to decrease labor costs.

16 Malone, Battle For Butte p. 55, 78

17 David Emmons, The Butte Irish (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989) p. 190; Laurie Mercier, Anaconda: Labor, Community and Culture in Montana’s Smelter City (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1989) p. 21-24; The corporate paternalism by Montanan mining capitalists was probably a more important factor than ethnicity because the Montanan WFM in general tended to be more conservative but many of those locals were not affected by this ethnic over class identity the way Butte & Anaconda was but all were affected by this corporate paternalism.

18 Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union Membership Books, vols. 279, 284, 289, 306 and 310, Western Federation of Miners/International Union of Mine, Mill and Smeltermen Collection, Archives, Norlin Library, University of Colorado at Boulder [hereafter cited as membership-books]; 1900 and 1910 censuses; Great Falls Tribune, One Hundred Years of Great Falls History (Great Falls Tribune, March 25, 1984) p. 3-I, 4-II, G-1

19 Malone and Roeder, Montana p. 170-173; Toole, Twentieth Century p. 108-112; Reno Sales, Underground Warfare at Butte (Caldwell: Caxton Printers, 1964).

20 McNelis, Copper King p. 51-84.

21 Malone, Battle for Butte p. 159-189.

22 McNelis, Copper King p. 120-145; Malone, Battle for Butte p. 182-190.

23 Malone, Battle for Butte p. 212-217; K. Ross Toole, "A history of the Anaconda Copper Mining Company: a study in the relationships between a state and its people and a corporation, 1880-1950" (Ph.D. diss., University of California Los Angeles, 1954), p. 31-49; Calvert, Gibraltar p. 29-30.

24 GFMSU, v. 243, p. 77-82; Malone & Roeder, Montana p. 198.

25 Malone & Roeder, Montana p. 157.

26 GFMSU, v. 243, p. 128-129.

27 Calvert, Gibraltar p. 37-41, 72.

28 Audy Baack, “The downfall of the Butte Miners' Union: a community of interests torn asunder,” (Master’s diss., Harvard University, 1994), p. 97-105.

29 Norma Smith, “The rise and fall of the Butte Miners' Union” (Ph.D. diss., Montana State University, 1961), p. 116-136; Prodgers, Almanac p. 100-101.

30 Richard J. Hoss, “Causes Underlying the Destruction of the Butte Miners Union in 1914,” (Master’s diss., University of Washington, 1957) p. 104-112.

31 GFMSU, v. 247, p. 3-7.

32 Arnon Gutfeld, “The Speculator Disaster in 1917: Labor Resurgences at Butte, Montana,” Arizona and the West 11.1: 27-38; James D. Harrington, “A Reexamination of the Granite Mountain-Speculator Fire,” Montana 48.3: 62-69; Arnon Gutfeld, "The Butte labor strikes and company retaliation during World War I," (Master’s diss., University of Montana, 1967).

33 Arnon Gutfeld, “The Murder of Frank Little,” Labor History, 10.2: 177-192; Donald Garrity, “The Frank Little episode and the Butte labor troubles of 1917” (Master’s diss,, Carroll College, 1957); what exactly “3-7-77” was supposed to refer to has never been definitively determined.

34 George Everett, “The Gibraltar of Unionism,” Labor’s Heritage, 10.1: 4-19.

35 Richard R. Aarstad, "Montana's Other Strike: The 1917 IWW Timber Strike In The Kootenai Valley," (Master’s dissertation, University of Montana, 2000); Benjamin G. Rader, “The Montana Lumber Strike of 1917,” Pacific Historical Review 36.2: 189-207; Arnon Gutfeld, Montana’s Agony: Years of War and Hysteria, 1917-1921 (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1979) p. 34-48, 71.

36 Ibid., p. 53, 70-80.

37 GFMSU, v. 248, p. 32-35, 243; The Cascade County Trades and Labor Assembly was an umbrella group uniting most union locals in Cascade County (the county that encompasses Great Falls) with the aim of uniting and promoting the labor movement in the county.

38 David Emmons, “An Aristocracy of Labor: The Irish Miners of butte, 1880-1914,” Labor History, 28.3: p. 275-306; Emmons, Butte Irish p. 198-203.

39 Ibid., p. 256-263; Baack, Downfall p. 75; Calvert, Gibraltar, p. 51-52.

40 Emmons, Butte Irish p. 263-267.

41 Calvert, Gibraltar p. 76-77; Emmons, Butte Irish p. 268-275.

42 Richard J. Hoss, "Causes underlying the destruction of the Butte Miners' Union in 1914," (Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1957); Stuart Kaufman, Peter Albert and Grace Pallading, eds., The Samuel Gompers Papers 9 vols. (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999) 9:182-184.

43 Membership-books v. 279, 284, 289, 306, 310; Great Falls Tribune, 4-II, G-1.

44 Jerry Calvert, “The Rise and Fall of Socialism in a Company Town, 1902-1905,” Montana, 36.4: 2-13; Prodgers, Almanac p. 66; Kelly, Anaconda p. 103-115.

45 Calvert, Rise and Fall of Socialism; Mercier, p. 21-27.

46 Mercier, p. 21-22.

47 Ibid., p. 15-17.

48 Gutfeld, Montana’s Agony p. 71; Mercier, p. 19-20; Prodgers, Almanac p. 108.

49 Paris Gibson, “The Founding of Great Falls,” Great Falls.

50 Richard Roeder, “A Settlement on the Plains: Paris Gibson and the Building of Great Falls,” Montana, 42.4: 4-19; Candi Heims “The Chamber of Commerce and the Building of Great Falls, Montana 1888-1945,” (Master’s diss., Arizona State University, 1992), p. 5-23.

51 Gordon Morris Bakken & J. Elwood Bakken, “The Goldfish Died: Great Falls, Fort Benton, and the Great Flood of 1908,” Montana, 51.4: 38-51; Heims, p. 47-65.

52 Heims, p. 95-107; Roeder, Settlement on the Plains.

53 Ibid.

54 W. Thomas White, “Paris Gibson, James J. Hill & the ‘New Minneapolis’: the Great Falls Water Power and Townsite Company,” Montana, 33.3: 60-69.

55 GFMSU, v. 241 p. 112; Kaufman, et al. 7:283-286; Melvyn Dubofsky, We Shall Be All: A History of the Industrial Workers of the World (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000) p. 62-66.

Western Federation of MinersIndustrial Workers of the WorldWorkersLabor movementEarly 1900sClass StruggleUnited StatesMontanaMiningTwentieth-century

Class Struggle Anarchist

Three Conservative Locals

The Evolution of the Great Falls Mill and Smeltermens’ Union, Butte Miners’ Union, and Anaconda Mill and Smeltermens’ Union, 1898-1919

The Lynching of Ward Churchill

Elections are a Scam

Solidarities