Thus far, then, the efforts of the Government to deal with the labor problem had not been entirely successful.It is true that the labor conflicts arose over differences which only indirectly involved constitutional questions.The aims of both the Knights of Labor and of the American Federation were primarily economic and both organizations were opposed to agitation of a distinctively political character.But parallel with the labor agitation, and in communication with it, there were radical reform movements of a type unknown before.There was now to arise a socialistic movement opposed to traditional constitutionalism, and therefore viewed with alarm in many parts of the country.
Veneration of the Constitution of 1787 was practically a national sentiment which had lasted from the time the Union was successfully established until the Cleveland era.However violent political differences in regard to public policy might be, it was the invariable rule that proposals must claim a constitutional sanction.In the Civil War, both sides felt themselves to be fighting in defense of the traditional Constitution.
The appeal to antiquity--even such a moderate degree of antiquity as may be claimed for American institutions--has always been the staple argument in American political controversy.The views and intentions of the Fathers of the Constitution are exhibited not so much for instruction as for imitation, and by means of glosses and interpretations conclusions may be reached which would have surprised the Fathers to whom they are imputed.Those who examine the records of the formative period of American institutions, not to obtain material for a case but simply to ascertain the facts, will readily observe that what is known as the principle of strict construction dates only from the organization of national parties under the Constitution.It was an invention of the opposition to Federalist rule and was not held by the makers of the Constitution themselves.The main concern of the framers was to get power for the National Government, and they went as far as they could with such success that striking instances may be culled from the writings of the Fathers showing that the scope they contemplated has yet to be attained.Strict construction affords a short and easy way of avoiding troublesome issues--always involved in unforeseen national developments--by substituting the question of constitutional power for a question of public propriety.But this method has the disadvantage, that it belittles the Constitution by making it an obstacle to progress.Running through much political controversy in the United States is the argument that, even granting that a proposal has all the merit claimed for it, nevertheless it cannot be adopted because the Constitution is against it.By strict logical inference the rejoinder then comes that, if so, the Constitution is no longer an instrument of national advantage.The traditional attachment of the American people to the Constitution has indeed been so strong that they have been loath to accept the inference that the Constitution is out of date, although the quality of legislation at Washington kept persistently suggesting that view of the case.
The failures and disappointments resulting from the series of national elections from 1874 to 1884, at last, made an opening for party movements voicing the popular discontent and openly antagonistic to the traditional Constitution.The Socialist Labor party held its first national convention in 1877.Its membership was mostly foreign; of twenty-four periodical publications then carried on in the party interest, only eight were in the English language; and this polyglot press gave justification to the remark that the movement was in the hands of people who proposed to remodel the institutions of the country before they had acquired its language.The alien origin of the movement was emphasized by the appearance of two Socialist members of the German Reichstag, who made a tour of this country in 1881 to stir up interest in the cause.It was soon apparent that the growth of the Socialist party organization was hindered by the fact that its methods were too studious and its discussions too abstract to suit the energetic temper of the times.Many Socialists broke away to join revolutionary clubs which were now organized in a number of cities without any clearly defined principle save to fight the existing system of government.
At this critical moment in the process of social disorganization, the influence of foreign destructive thought made itself felt.
The arrival of Johann Most from Europe, in the fall of 1882, supplied this revolutionary movement with a leader who made anarchy its principle.Originally a German Socialist aiming to make the State the sole landlord and capitalist, he had gone over to anarchism and proposed to dissolve the State altogether, trusting to voluntary association to supply all genuine social needs.Driven from Germany, he had taken refuge in England, but even the habitual British tolerance had given way under his praise of the assassination of the Czar Alexander in 1881 and his proposal to treat other rulers in the same way.He had just completed a term of imprisonment before coming to the United States.Here, he was received as a hero; a great mass meeting in his honor was held in Cooper Union, New York, in December, 1882;and when he toured the country he everywhere addressed large meetings.
In October 1883, a convention of social revolutionists and anarchists was held in Chicago, at which a national organization was formed called the International Working People's Association.
