Memorial Day Massacre

The Event Chicago police attacked a crowd gathered in support of striking workers

Date May 30, 1937

Place Chicago, Illinois

Images of the Memorial Day Massacre were captured on film by Indianapolis 500 filmmaker Otto Lippert (later edited by Paramount News) and by the cameras of the Associated Press and World Wide Photos. The pictures were broadly disseminated as evidence of corporate America’s ruthless opposition to organized labor.

In early 1936, the Steel Workers Organizing Committee (SWOC) used the media and a multiracial, multiethnic appeal to build its union. The efforts worked, and a year later the committee attempted to engage “Little Steel” corporations in collective bargaining. Little Steel, organized under the leadership of Republic Steel president Thomas Girdler, would not negotiate. He responded by getting some workers to advance a back-to-work campaign, terminated strikers, and used tear gas on demonstrators. He also hired Hill and Knowlton as Little Steel’s public-relations firm.

89129490-77274.jpg

According to historian Carol Quike, Girdler believed that SWOC was weak and thus provoked it into the May 26, 1937, strike at Republic Steel’s Chicago plant. The strike went national by May 28, with eight thousand on strike from plants in different locations. The police began arresting protesters in south Chicago. A couple of days later, the Chicago strikers numbered more than one thousand. By Memorial Day, they were joined by University of Chicago students, professionals, social workers from Hull House, church groups, and many women and children. The atmosphere was described as festive, and the weather was sunny and warm. There were singing and speeches, followed by a march to the gates of the south Chicago Republic Steel Corporation plant. As the crowd approached, police captain James Mooney commanded them to disperse; however, when an object (possibly a tree branch) was thrown toward the police contingent of more than two hundred officers, the latter responded with gunfire, tear gas, and clubs. Some eyewitnesses described the protesters as stunned that the police were firing shots at them. The brutal attack left four dead on the spot; six died later. Thirty others, including a baby and an eleven-year-old boy, were wounded.

Initially, major newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times framed the event as Republic Steel and the police reported it, claiming that the police were justified in efforts against an unruly mob. Conservatives had long deemed union efforts to be part of a communist agenda. The San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Daily News, Time, and Newsweek published the other side of the story, including images of police subduing the crowd and descriptions of conspiracies to murder workers, in addition to images of the day’s shock and horror. President Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed discontentment with the actions of both parties in the dispute. This was much to the disappointment of the labor movement, which had contributed nearly one million dollars to Roosevelt’s 1936 election campaign.

Thereafter, the union presented Mayor Edward Kelly with a petition for Police Commissioner James P. Allman and Captain Mooney to resign and for the prosecution of officers who fired upon the protesters. The funeral of those who died during the protest was attended by about seven thousand. Not until 1942 did the “Little Steel” companies make their first contract with the union.

Impact

The event brought to the forefront of the American psyche the savagery of antilabor efforts. Unlike previous disputed stories, photographs presented evidence of extreme efforts to stop organized labor in the United States.

Bibliography

Dennis, Michael. The Memorial Day Massacre and the Movement for Industrial Democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

Quirke, Carol. “Reframing Chicago’s Memorial Day Massacre, May 30, 1937.” American Quarterly 60, no. 1 (2008): 129-157.

Turrini, Joseph M. “The Newton Steel Strike: A Watershed in the CIO’s Failure to Organize.” Labor History 38, nos. 2/3 (1997): 229-265.