{{Subst:Nul|<==do not change this line, it will set the date automatically
Washington Navy Yard Labor Strike of 1835
The Washington Navy Yard labor strike of 1835 is considered the first strike of federal civilian employees.[1][2] [3]The strike began on 31 July 1835 and ended 15 August 1835. The strike was in support of the movement advocating a ten hour work day and for a redress of grievances such as newly imposed lunch hour regulations. [4] The strike failed in its objectives for two reasons, the Secretary of the Navy refused to change the shipyard working hours and the loss of public support due to involvement of large numbers of mechanics and laborers in the race riot popularly known as the Snow Riot[5]
Historical Background
1835 was an important year for American labor with many workers particularly in Boston, Philadelphia and Washington DC petitioning for higher wages, better working conditions and a ten hour work day. In Washington D.C. from early in the nineteenth century many workers agitated for a reduction in the arduous twelve hour workday. At the navy yard employment conditions, and enslaved labor created problems and strife. For the first thirty years of the nineteen century, the navy yard was the Districts principal employer of enslaved African Americans. White workers fearing competition and a reduction in wages resented the presence of blacks on the navy yard. On the Yard enslaved African Americans worked as seamen, cooks, servants or laborers; they performed many of the most unpleasant and onerous jobs. The number of blacks free and enslaved rose rapidly and by 1808, muster lists reflect they made up one third of the workforce.[6] On the navy yard slaveholders included both naval officers and senior civilians.[7] Labor trouble and racial tension broke out periodically as the restive and volatile workforce sought higher wages and better conditions.[8] As early as March 1807 the blacksmiths writing to the Secretary of the Navy, claimed the “right to Demand an Equal Participation with others in the Benefit of our Labour” and their wages restored.[9] The Secretary in response labeled them “a dissatisfied set of men” and threatened to “dismiss all complaining men as soon as publick convenience will permit…” and replace them with a “set of orderly, hard working fellows…” [10] Two Washington Navy Yard “job actions” had occurred previously. The first on 13 March 1827, when a dispute over wages provoked laborers to leave the yard briefly to express their displeasure. The second began on 23 March 1830, when the laborers were recorded “standing out” for a week to show that their per diem wage rate should have been granted sooner. [11] Except for the brief entries made by the officer of the watch however in the station log, little is known about the exact circumstances of either incident. These job actions represent a period when federal workers, though not unionized could strike - an option later denied to government employees with the passage of the 1947 Taft–Hartley Act.[12] The workday in the all federal navy yards prior to 1835 was sunrise to sunset, with time off for breakfast. In May 1835, the Boston carpenters issued their famous “Ten Hour Circular,” which found wide distribution throughout the major cities on the eastern seaboard and the District of Columbia and quickly became a rallying cry for reducing the length of the working day. [13] Early in 1835, the mechanics in the New York Navy Yard petitioned the Board of Navy Commissioners to reduce the workday to ten hours, but their petition was returned to them with the advice, " that to grant it would not be in the interest of the government." [14]
In the summer of 1835 Philadelphia Navy Yard shipwrights, joiners and other workers became leaders in this effort when they chose to combine direct action, a threatened strike, with political pressure to the executive branch. After first making a request to the Secretary of the Navy via shipyard Commandant Commodore James Barron, on 29 August 1835 they appealed directly to President Andrew Jackson.[15] Commodore Barron endorsed his workers request with the following acknowledgment "I would respectfully observe – Seems to be inevitable, sooner or later, for as the working man are seconded by all the Master workmen, city councils etc. there is no probability they will secede from their demands." Their petition was granted and on 31 August 1835 the president ordered the Secretary of the Navy to grant the ten hour work day effective 3 September 1835. However, the change was only applicable to the Philadelphia Navy Yard.[16] News of these events at Philadelphia Navy Yard was widely circulated in Washington D.C. Lastly Commodore Isaac Hull, WNY Commandant 1829 - 1835, was unpopular with navy yard civilian workforce and frequently had difficulties with employees.[17] Hull came to believe that most navy yard mechanics were overpaid and under worked. In a revealing 1831 letter, Hull wrote to the President of the Navy Board of Commissioners:
"If the men employed by day would perform fair days work, it would be much to the public interest to have the work done in that way , [rather then by contract] but experience has shewn me that all the care and attention possible to give them and all the driving and encouragement is thrown away on the mechanics of this place, for if they are at work by the day on a building that there is the least chance of keeping through the whole season they will be sure to do so though it might be completed by mid-summer"[18]
The Strike
The spark that ignited Washington Navy Yard strike occurred on 29 July 1835 when Commodore Isaac Hull issued a new and unprecedented regulation forbidding Yard workers and mechanics from entering shop spaces during their lunch break and from bringing lunches on the yard property. The order read:
"The Commandant of the Navy Yard at Washington D.C. finds it necessary to adopt the following regulations Vizt The Mechanics (with the exception of the Anchorsmiths & Engineers ) and Laborers employed in the Navy Yard are prohibited entering the Workshops, Ship Houses and other places where the public property, Tools &c are deposited, during the hours allotted to Meals. The Mechanics and Laborers are forbidden to bring their Meals into the Yard either in Baskets, Bags or otherwise, and none will be permitted to eat their Meals within the Yard unless specially permitted by the Commandant."[19] Hull's regulation was issued in response to complaints from the master mechanics about the loss of tools and other small items. A watch was setup and not long afterward, on July 27, 1835, Anthony Sumners, a blacksmith striker in the Anchor shop, was found hiding a copper spike in his lunch basket. Afterward a search of Sumners house revealed more missing government property. Sumners later explained he stole the items in order to sell and support his large family. Sumners was subsequently arrested, tried and convicted of theft of government property. Sumners was later pardoned based on his service in the war of 1812 and the recommendation of the jury, by President Andrew Jackson.[20] When the workers found they no longer could carry even their own lunch into the Yard, many viewed the order as nothing more then a presumption that they were all thieves. On 31 July 1835 when Francis Barry, the Clerk of the Roll, began reading the morning muster roll, a few men filed in to answer while their workmates stood nearby just outside the main “Latrobe Gate” yelling and urging them, “Don’t answer! Don’t answer!” Naval Constructor William Doughty and a frequent critic of the Commandant denounced Hull's regulations telling the men Hull must "think them all rogues or thieves." Three - quarters of men employed in August 1835, 175 of 231 left the Yard and joined their colleagues on strike.[21][22] The strikers quickly formed a committee and elected their leaders: Samuel Briggs ( plumber), George Lyndall (ship joiner), and John Miskill (carpenter). The three leaders, followed by 150 of their fellow strikers, immediately carried their petition directly to the office of Secretary of the Navy Mahlon Dickerson, located just a mile and half away on Capitol Hill, “to pray for redress of grievances.”[23]
Dickerson quickly wrote Hull as to question what had prompted workers to strike. On August 1, 1835, Hull replied with a copy of his original order and an explanation of what in his judgment incited the workers action: "The regulation has met with disapprobation of the workmen generally and without stating their objections and without assigning their reasons for doing so have left the yard and ended their work. I cannot conceive of any good reason and I believe that the mechanics of this said yard have been acted upon by other causes."[24] Hull's "acted upon by other causes" is underscored in the original and is his reference to the Board of Navy Commissioners resistance to the ten hour day.[25]
The strike and the subsequent Snow Riot in the District exacerbated long standing white fears of black workers on the navy yard. In an undated diary entry for August 1835, African American diarist Michael Shiner confirms intimidation by white workers and their demand that the black caulkers stop work: "Commodore Hull ishsared and evry one of them struck and said they wouldnt work anny moore and at the same time they were collered man from Baltimore by the name of Israel Jones a caulker by Trade he was the forman Caulker of those Colerded Caulkers and they where fifteen or twenty of them here at that time Caulkin on the Columbia and the Carpenters made all of them knock oft two."[26] As Michael Shiner wrote the white workers blamed Hull for bringing in black caulkers from Baltimore, Maryland and believed that black workers were to be used to break their strike. Hull's report to Dickerson shows the black caulkers did not strike.[27] This and other incidents raised always simmering racial tension in the city and on the navy yard. White mechanics and laborers went on a three day rampage in which they threatened blacks and broke up their businesses and property. On August 14, 1835, he wrote a letter to Dickerson, and expressed some apprehension for the safety of the black caulkers that he recently hired. Rather than make a decision, Hull looked to the Secretary for a solution to his dilemma. "Information has been conveyed to me that the Excitement which has prevailed in the City for some days past is about to be extended to the Neighborhood of the Establishment; the immediate Cause I understand is there are employed in the Yard a number of Blacks, who were in consequence of the Scarcity of Caulkers in this City brought in from Baltimore to caulk the Ship now building.Under the Circumstances I have to request that you will be pleased to give me instructions, Shall I let the Blacks inside the yard and afford them such protection as the force and means at my Command will allow or shall I discharge them and afford them an opportunity to return to Baltimore? "[28] As one historian has noted, Dickerson chose to throw the black caulkers to the mob as he promptly replied, “In answer to your letter of this date, I have to observe that for the present should think it not best to admit the colored people in the Navy Yard at night.” After days of disorder and riot, President Andrew Jackson ordered a company of US Marines to restore order.[29]
The strike which began over regulations and work-hours had quickly morphed into a race riot as now unemployed white mechanics and laborers took out their resentment on the black population. The strikers were particularly incensed that Hull had brought a group of free black caulkers from Baltimore to caulk the frigate USS Columbia. This action inflamed an already volatile situation and was an important reason why the mechanics threatened to attack the navy yard and Commodore Hull. At about the same time a rumor rapidly circulated that a free black man named Beverley Snow, the owner of Epicurean Eating House, known for serving sophisticated and luxurious food, had insulted the wives of the mechanics. This resulted in a group of mechanics attacking Snow's restaurant. Michael Shiner relates the navy yard strikers were not only angry at Snow but prepared to go after Isaac Hull. "Mechanics of classes gathered into snows Restaurant and broke him up Root and Branch and they were after snow but he flew for his life and that night after they had broke snow up they threatened to come to the navy yard after Commodore Hull. But they didn't come that night and the next day Commodore Hull Received orders from the navy department from the Hon secretary of the navy Mr levy Woodbury to fortify the yard"[30] After breaking up his restaurant, the mechanics drank all Snows stock of whiskey and champagne. Fortunately for Snow the white rioters were unable to locate him and he made his escape. In the capital though mobs of whites still continued to attack all establishments run by free blacks: schools, churches and businesses.[31]
Josephine Seaton, a keen observer and the wife of the publisher of the National Intelligencer,William Seaton, states the navy yard strikers played a significant role in the Snow riot: "Snow will certainly be torn to pieces by the mechanics if he be caught, and they are in full pursuit of him. Unfortunately, several hundred mechanics of the navy yard are out of employment, who, aided and abetted by their sympathizers, create the mob, — the first I have ever seen, not recollecting those of Sheffield, and it is truly alarming." [32] Seaton was one of the few whites to record the strike, a strike which revealed the corrosive effects of racism on the navy yard workforce as white workers sought to blame their own precarious economic situation on free and enslaved African Americans. As a result of a mediation the navy yard labor strike ended on 15 August 1835 when the mechanics return to work.
Legacy
On 15 August 1835 the navy yard strikers were allowed to return to work. The strike had ended through mediation with both Commodore Hull and the strikers acknowledging the two week labor strike as simply a " misunderstanding". [33] The strikers had failed to achieve any of their goals. Commodore Hull left the navy yard in September 1835 never to return but the regulation regarding the workers lunch restrictions remained in place and the hours of work continued the same until 1840.[34][35] For the workers, the strike of 1835 revealed the weakness and tenuous nature of their bargaining situation. As day labor in a protracted dispute, and absent effective organization, they inevitably suffered. Most of all the strike revealed the corrosive effects of racism on the workforce as white workers sought to blame their own precarious economic situation on free and enslaved African Americans. Further, the strike left as part of its legacy a deep and abiding racial mistrust, which would linger. For next century, the history of the Washington Navy Yard strike of 1835 and Snow race riot remained an embarrassment to be glossed over and disassociated from the District of Columbia and Washington Navy Yard’s official histories.[36][37] Historical understanding of the strike has improved with transcription and publication important documents. For example some historians prior to the 2007 publication of the complete Michael Shiner's diary actually saw the strike as an example of early inter-racial worker solidarity. “In a number of instances, however, Negro and white workers [at the WNY] worked and went on strike together. Thus white carpenters and caulkers and Negro caulkers employed in the navy yard in Washington joined in a strike in July 1835.”[38] Recent scholarship on Michael Shiner and Isaac Hull however has explicitly noted the linkage of the 1835 strike and riot[39] [40]
References
- ^ The Encyclopedia of Strikes in American History editors Aron Brenner, Benjamin Daily and Emanuel Ness, (New York:M.E.Sharpe, 2009),p.xvii.
- ^ U.S. Dept. of Labor, Third Annual Report of the Commissioners of Labor, Volume 3.,Government Printing Office: Washington DC , 1887, p.1034.
- ^ A Proud Past A Bright Future AFGE: The Future is Ours A history of the American Federation of Goverment Employees, AFC-CIO,Washington DC n.d., p.2. http://www.nylocal3148.org/docs/History.pdf
- ^ Maloney, Linda M., The Captain from Connecticut: The Life and Naval Times of Isaac Hull (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1986), 422.
- ^ Maloney, pp 438 - 439.
- ^ Sharp, John G. African Americans in Slavery and Freedom on the Washington Navy Yard 1799 -1865, Morgan Hannah Press: Concord, 2011,p.8
- ^ Bolden, Tonya Capital Days Michael Shiner's Journal and the Growth of our Nation's Capital Abrams Books:New York, 2015, p.17.
- ^ Sharp, John G.editor Diary of Michael Shiner Relating to the History of the Washington Navy Yard 1813 -1869, Naval History and Heritage Command, 2015,introduction https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/d/diary-of-michael-shiner/introduction.html
- ^ Blacksmiths to Smith 11 March 1807, RG 45/M124, NARA
- ^ Robert Smith to Edward Preble 13 March 1807, RG45/M125,NARA,
- ^ Sharp, John G. Washington Navy Yard Station Log Entries November 1822 - December 1889 Naval History and Heritage Command https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/washington-navy-yard-station-log-november-1822-march-1830-extracts.html accessed 4 June 2017
- ^ Charlestown Navy Yard Boston National Historical Park U.S. Department of the Interior :Washington DC 1995, p.22.
- ^ Commons,John A. , ed., A Documentary History of American Industrial Society ,Volume VI (New York: Russell and Russell, 1958), 94-99.
- ^ Commons, John Rodgers, et. al. History of Labor in the United States, Volume 1.Macmillan Company: New York, p.393
- ^ Harvey ,O. L. The 10-Hour Day in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, 1835-36 Labor Review Monthly Vol. 85, No. 3 (MARCH 1962), pp. 258-260
- ^ Sharp, John G. COMMODORE JAMES BARRON, U. S. NAVY --Letters to The Board Of Navy Commissioners http://genealogytrails.com/penn/philadelphia/phlbios_a-b.html
- ^ Peck,Taylor Round Shots to Rockets A History of the Washington Navy Yard and United States Naval Gun Factory United States Naval Institute: Annapolis,1940, p. 96.
- ^ Maloney, p.422 and p.437.
- ^ Sharp, John G. History of the Washington Navy Yard Civilian Workforce 1799 -1962 Naval History and Heritage Command, 2005, pp 19 -20.https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/browse-by-topic/heritage/washington-navy-yard/pdfs/WNY_History.pdf
- ^ The Metropolitan,Georgetown Washington DC 2, Dec. 12, 1835,p.2
- ^ Maloney, p.437.
- ^ Hull to Dickerson, Aug. 12, 1835 with two enclosures, titled “Number & Occupations of men Now Employ’d in Washington Navy Yard” RG 45/M125, NARA.
- ^ Baltimore Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 2, Aug. 3, 1835,p.3
- ^ Hull to Dickerson August, 1, 1835, RG 45/M125 NARA
- ^ Maloney, p.437.
- ^ Shiner, August 1835, p.60
- ^ Hull to Dickerson, Aug. 12, 1835 confirms 31 caulkers in total with none on strike.
- ^ Hull to Dickerson, Aug. 14, 1835, RG 45/M125, NARA.
- ^ Maloney, 439.
- ^ Shiner, p.60.
- ^ Morley,Jefferson Snow Storm in August Washington City, Francis Scott Key, and the Forgotten Race Riot of 1835 Doubleday: New York 2012,pp.148 -150.
- ^ Seaton, Josephine. William Winston Seaton of the National Intelligencer: A Biographical Sketch, James R. Osgood : Boston, 1871, p.217.
- ^ Peck, p.98.
- ^ Maloney, p.439.
- ^ General Orders for the Regulation of the Navy Yard Washington, DC [circa 1833 -- 1850] editor Sharp, John G. Naval History and Heritage Command 2015, orders 13, 14 1and 29.https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/general-orders-for-the-regulation-of-the-navy-yard-washington-dc-1833-1850.html
- ^ Hibben, Henry B. Navy-Yard, Washington Government Printing Office:Washington DC, 1890.
- ^ Peck, Taylor Round Shot To Rockets ,1949.
- ^ Foner, Phillip S. History of the Labor Movement in the United States from Colonial Times to the Founding of the American Federation of Labor (New York: International Publishers, 1979), p. 269
- ^ Dickey, J.B, Empire of Mud the Secret History of Washington, DCLyons Press:Guilford, p.128
- ^ Maloney, pp 430 -439.