Sherry Chandler » Some things I didn’t know about Eugene V. Debs

Some things I didn’t know about Eugene V. Debs

I’ve been trying to wean myself away from election obsession and get a little perspective by reading Ernest Freeberg’s Democracy’s Prisoner: Eugene V. Debs, The Great War, and the Right to Dissent (Harvard University Press, 2008). Not much headway so far but here are some things I’ve learned, besides the fact that this is a period of history I’m woefully ignorant of (as if that didn’t just about take all my knowledge of history):

  • When Debs ran for president in 1920 as the Socialist candidate, he ran from Federal prison and his campaign buttons read Vote for Prisoner 9653.
  • The American Civil Liberties Union was formed to protest the treatment of conscientious objectors during World War I. (Yes, that was Woodrow Wilson.)
  • Debs was a “professional agitator” who financed his campaign and made his living by charging admission to his campaign speeches. (He obviously couldn’t do that in 1920; he wasn’t allowed to even talk to the press. Still he got a million votes.)
  • In 1894, when Debs lead an American Railway Union strike against the Pullman Palace Sleeping Car Company, the New York Times called him an “enemy of the human race.” Other major newspapers were not so kind.
  • Workers were divided against themselves: “Natives resented immigrants; whites shunned blacks, who in turn often served as strikebreakers.” Sounds a little bit familiar.
  • In 1912, Debs got a 29-minute standing ovation from a sold-out crowd at Madison Square Garden.

Tell me whose tools you use, and I will tell you whose slave you are.
— Eugene V. Debs

Possibly related posts:

    Debs at Moundsville
    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
    Democracy’s Prisoner
    Deja vu all over again
    The war to end wars

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008 History Trackback URL for this entry

8 Comments

  • 1. Helen Losse replies at 10th June 2008, 11:48 am :

    Sadly, I think this means, tell me whose newspapers (columns, blogs) you read, “and I will tell you whose slave you are.” (And I don’t mean we’re slave to the columnists.)

  • 2. sherry replies at 10th June 2008, 3:43 pm :

    Hmmm, Helen, given Debs’s meaning, that the workers will be freed by owning the tools, i.e., the factories or means of production, then blogs should be tools of liberation in that they put the tools of the press in the hands of the (metaphorical) workers.

    If this is not the case, then why?

    It is certainly the way the phenomenon of the internet has been touted.

  • 3. Helen Losse replies at 10th June 2008, 4:10 pm :

    I guess I just wonder if we’re as free as we think.

  • 4. sherry replies at 10th June 2008, 6:05 pm :

    Ah! Probably not, Helen. Probably not.

  • 5. sherry replies at 11th June 2008, 9:59 am :

    Helen, to expand our conversation a little, The Daily Howler has a post up about the problem of the media’s “not telling the truth” and the reaction to Hillary’s statement about Robert F. Kennedy — a trumped up media storm that I hold in utter contempt:

    First to expound was Richard Cohen, in the June 3 Washington Post. Cohen said this, explaining why he’d hated the Democratic campaign: “I hate that Clinton’s observation that Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in June ran on and on when everyone save some indigenous people in the Brazilian rain forest knew what she meant.” If Cohen is right, then Broder and Toner were simply lying in yesterday’s Times. (Neither scribe lives in Brazil.)

    Second up was Michael Kinsley, who didn’t seem to hate the lying at all. On Sunday, he bravely said this in the New York Times, knowing that Kevin and Josh and Duncan and all good pseudo-liberal house-brokens have accepted this evil conduct for years: “[A]t the end, when her own clumsy comment about Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June was willfully misinterpreted to suggest that she was wishing that fate on her opponent, it served her right.” If Kinsley’s implication is right, then Broder and Toner were “willfully misinterpreting” what Clinton had said.

    Do you see the problem that develops when people like Kinsley and Cohen start telling the truth about not telling the truth? Cohen said the dissembling was wrong; Kinsley seemed to approve of the lying. But both men are veteran journalists; they have lived for decades at the top of the mainstream press pack. And both men seemed to think it was obvious that people like Broder and Toner are lying—simply lying in your faces—when they write bullsh*t like that.

    Were John Broder and Robin Toner lying on Monday? That’s what Cohen and Kinsley seem to believe. Needless to say, housebroken boys on the liberal web will know they mustn’t discuss such matters. But do you see the problem that quickly arises when major journalists start telling the truth about not telling the truth?

    Next question: Did journalists really think something was wrong with Bill Clinton’s statement in South Carolina? Or was that just a “willful misrepresentation” too? Do you see the problem that quickly arises when we’re told, by two major scribes, that their colleagues tell you things they don’t believe? When John Judis tells you what he did about his colleagues’ view of Obama?

    Housebroken pool boys will know not to speak. Despite their long-standing willful silence, can you see the problem involved here?

  • 6. Max replies at 11th June 2008, 12:00 pm :

    COMING TOGETHER? Give me a break! (Bill Clinton Quote)
    The Dem’s strategists in unison predict that all will get in line behind the current nominee. (Wishful thinking I believe) Hillary being treated poorly by her own party, I don’t see the up side for women to “fall in line”. Watching the cable news programs, I get the feeling that those that supported her are an inconvenience, and should just go away; many will along with the working class.

  • 7. sherry replies at 11th June 2008, 3:36 pm :

    Some indication, Max, that the plan is to bypass Clinton supporters, feminists, and come at the working class by way of the religious right. Of course, this may be a way to try to mend fences after the Wright and Pfleger blow-ups. Still, a lot of right-wingers on this list. Another possibility is that he’ll try a woman vice-president, like Kathleen Sibelius.

    Should be interesting to watch, I guess. I’m still watching.

  • 8. Max replies at 11th June 2008, 3:55 pm :

    Maybe he can go to GW for advice w/hat in hand.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>