Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:44:46.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Knights of St. Crispin in Massachusetts, 1869–1878

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

John Philip Hall
John Philip Hall
Affiliation:
University of Baltimore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the national unions that grew up in the decade after the Civil War none made so great an impression on the public mind during its career as the Knights of St. Crispin. Like all transitional movements, die order combined nostalgia for the past with a daring experimentalism in confronting the cordwainers' problems. Previous histories have neglected its forward-looking aspect, perhaps because the harking back to what was lost was eloquently set forth in publications, while the experiments are found in the practices of local unions, little understood even by those who made them. Only in the perspective of time can we see how much more significant were the actions of the rank and file than the speeches and editorials of tradition-bound leaders.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1958 , pp. 161 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lescohier, Don D., The Knights of St. Crispin, 1867-1874, A Study in the Industrial Causes of Trade Unionism. Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, No. 355 (Madison, Wis., 1910), p. 8Google Scholar; cited hereafter as Lescohier, Knights.

2 The American Workman (Boston), 03. 5, 1870.Google ScholarCommons, John R. and , others, History of Labour in the United States (New York: Macmillan, 4 vols, 1918-1935), II, 46–47, 76–78Google Scholar; cited hereafter as Commons, History. Hoover, Edgar M. Jr, Location Theory and the Shoe and Leather Industries (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press, 1937), p. 231.Google ScholarMcNeill, George E., The Labor Movement: The Problem of Today (Boston, 1887), p. 200Google Scholar.

3 Hide and Leather Interest (Boston), 03. 23, Apr. 13, 1870Google Scholar. Kent's point of view is obvious from his business. “Mr. Pratt” was very likely Galen E. Pratt, Grand Sir Knight of the State Grand Lodge, who should have known what he was talking about.

4 This book is at the Baker Library, Harvard Business School.

5 The Crispins employed, in Lynn and elsewhere, the type of structure that has prevailed in shoe unions to the present day. The amalgamated craft union—separate locals for each department within an industry—has been the rule wherever membership has been large enough to make the separation practicable. Lynn papers of the Crispin era referred to Unity (lasters), Harmony (pullers-over), and Mutual (stitchers) lodges. This was an innovation introduced by the Crispins. It suggests that the idea of shoemaking as a single craft had already been abandoned in favor of a variety of subcrafts specializing in a single major operation.

6 , Commons, History, II, 76Google Scholar, credits McKay with revolutionizing the industry by “perfecting a pegging machine.” The McKay was a sewing, not a pegging machine. , Lescohier, Knights, p. 18Google Scholar, suggests that the McKay could sew welts; this could not be done by machine until the Goodyear was perfected in 1868. Also, the Blake machine was not “perfected” by McKay (Ibid.). He was a businessman, not an inventor.

7 Wright, Carroll D., “Strikes in Massachusetts, 1830-1880,” Eleventh Annual Report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics (Boston, 1880)Google Scholar.

8 Hide and Leather Interest, Mar. 23, Apr. 6, 13, 1870.

9 Massachusetts State Archives, papers filed under the heading “Massachusetts Grand Lodge, Knights of St. Crispin.”

10 Hide and Leather Interest, Apr. 13, 1870.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.; also Apr. 20, 1870.

13 Rudolph, Frederick, “Chinamen in Yankeedom: Anti-Unionism in Massachusetts in 1870,” American Historical Review, LIII (10. 1947), 13–15Google Scholar.

14 Hide and Leather Interest, June 8, 1870.

15 Ibid., July 27, Aug. 10, 1870.

16 Oct. 8, 1870.

17 Hide and Leather Interest, Oct. 8, 1870, Apr. 8, 1871. Shanks, W., in Scribner's Monthly, 09. 1871Google Scholar, estimated the saving at seven dollars a case.

18 , LynnRecord, –06 1, 8, 1872Google Scholar. A still-current joke among shoe workers goes, “All it takes to start a shoe factory is a ten-dollar bill.”

19 Lynn Little Giant, Nov. 5, 1870, Apr. 15, 1871. Sampson's men were technically not “contract emigrants” because they had paid their own way to this country and were hired in San Francisco.

20 , Commons, History, II, 148–51Google Scholar.

21 Hide and Leather Interest, June 22, 1870.

22 E.g., see , LynnKnight of Labor, 08. 14, Sept. 25, 1886Google Scholar.

23 , Wright, “Strikes in Massachusetts,” p. 30Google Scholar; Little Giant, July 8, Sept. 16, 1871.

24 Little Giant, Sept. 30, 1871, Jan. 27, June 20, 1872.

25 , Lewis and , Newhall, History of Lynn (2 vols., Lynn: Nichols, 1890-1897), II, 52–53Google ScholarPubMed.

26 Little Giant, Aug. 3, 1872.

27 Record, Aug. 10, 17, 24, 1872; Little Giant, Aug. 10, 17, 24, 1872; , Lewis and , Newhall, History of Lynn, II, 56Google Scholar; , Wright, “Strikes in Massachusetts,” pp. 33–34Google Scholar.

28 Quoted by , Lescohier, Knights, p. 49Google Scholar, from American Workman, July 10, 1869.

29 , Lescohier, Knights, pp. 49–55Google Scholar, gives some examples. For others see Hide and Leather Interest, June 15, Nov. 19, 1870; Record, Sept. 14, 1872, Feb. 15, Aug. 23, 1873; Little Giant, Sept. 9, Dec 2, 1871, July 18, Aug. 10, 1872; Lynn Transcript, Jan; 6, 1872.

30 Little Giant, Jan. 27, 1872. , Commons, History, II, 79Google Scholar, is mistaken in saying the incorporation bill “actually passed the lower House but was rejected in the Senate.” The petition was given “leave to withdraw” by the lower House in 1869, but was passed by both houses in 1870 and signed by.the Governor, May 26, 1870. Acts and Resolves Passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, 1870, p. 198Google Scholar.

31 Little Giant, Dec. 2, 1871.

32 Hide and Leather Interest, Mar. 23, Apr. 6, 1870.

33 , Lescohier, Knights, pp. 40, 56, 58Google Scholar.

34 Little Giant, July 26, 1873.

35 Record, July 26, 1873.

36 Not only the Crispin leaders, but also Lescohier, the historian of the order, were deceived by the green hands issue. Lescohier described the Worcester strike of 1870 as a “grievance,” implying that it was approved by the Grand Lodge and therefore caused by green hands or defense of the order. Twelve hundred men were involved and he put the “cost” at $175,000 (p. 36). But elsewhere (pp. 41–42) he specifically named the cause of the strike as resistance to wage cuts and a yellow-dog contract, and the cost was explained as wages lost, not the cost of the strike to the union. Since he cited the strike to demonstrate the failure of the International Grand Lodge to support green hands grievances with strike funds, the figure for costs is irrelevant. More important, this strike provides further evidence that wages, not green hands, were the primary concern of the Crispins. Curiously, , Lescohier, Knights, p. 40Google Scholar, once remarked that wage cuts were “the most prolific cause of Crispin strikes and, to the average member, probably the most important.” But on the same page he called the organizers of the revived order “Crispins only in name,” because they ignored green hands. Thus the most important single fact about the history of the order was brushed aside in favor of the vaporings of a few leaders. The green hands issue would be very important to a biographer of Newell Daniels, founder of the order, but only because it might be interesting to learn why he clung to the illusion.