The Black worker as strike-breaker was a reality born of the labor movement’s refusal to admit Black workers into unions. Activist D.E. Tobias, born in South Carolina to formerly enslaved parents, is better known in Britain than the U.S. There, at the turn of the last century, he published his book ‘Free, But Not Free’ on the post-Civil War conditions and campaigned against convict labor. Returning to the U.S. he wrote this article in response to the racial violence that accompanied several strikes there, including among Teamsters and packinghouse workers, explaining that realty and demanding the labor movement change, or both will lose.

‘Black Strike-Breakers’ by D.E. Tobias from Chicago Socialist. Vol. 6 No. 323. May 13, 1905.

Being a student of social and economic problems of the hour. I have carefully watched the struggle tween capital and labor here in Chicago from April the 6th down to the present time.

From the beginning of the present strike, to May 2d, when a number of black men were brought from South to take the places of white men on strike apparently there was nothing very alarming about this struggle between capital and labor. There had been a few scuffles between non-union and union men and the police and the press of Chicago, as a whole, was on the side of capital. Since black men have been brought to Chicago, by capitalists, to aid them in getting the victory over labor the entire aspect of the struggle has been changed and now it would seem as if the real issue between capital and labor is to be dodged and the fight made along lines of color and racial prejudices.

As there seems to be great danger lest the main issue in the present struggle between capital and labor is lost sight of the moment seems opportune for a black man to address a few remarks to Socialists who think clearly and rightly on this question of struggle between capital and labor.

Doubtless on the first thought even many Socialists have thought and will think that the statement so frequently made that black men are always willing to work cheaper than white men is true and therefore black men accept less pay than white men are willing to work for. There could be no greater fallacy in the world than this. The facts in the case are as follows:

Black men never of their own volition seek work at a lower rate of wages than white men get. In the first place let us be fair and acknowledge facts. As a rule black people do not know the wage standard among white workers, and why? Because they have never been admitted Into the unions in sufficient numbers to find out.

Let us acknowledge another fact and state frankly that very many unions will not admit black men to their ranks on the same terms and conditions as white men get. These are hard, cold facts, which are beyond truthful refutation. There are unions in some sections of this country which admit black men, but they are the exceptions and not the rule. In the South especially. all organizations which purport to work for the betterment of humanity continue their efforts to white people. Socialists and labor people in general in the South discriminate against black people.

From the above facts let us, argues White agents for capitalists, go South when there is trouble between capital and labor in the North and West and make splendid offers to black men to accept work at much higher rate wages than black men receive in the South. But white agents never inform black men of any trouble between capital and labor until all arrangements are made and in most cases the first information black men get of the trouble is when they are on the spot: far away from their homes, without money and bound by contracts: placed in such a position there is nothing left black men but to obey capitalists and fight white laborers.

Now I ask in all honesty: Place white men in the same position of black men and does anyone really believe that they would, under similar circumstances and conditions, act differently to what black men do?

Look at this fact: Here are white non-union men who are working for capitalists under the same conditions as black men from the South, and yet they were on the ground and understood the situation. The point I wish to make and emphasize is this: Let reasonable people look at the facts in the case and see that all this miser able talk about color of the skin is a mere hoax! The issue in this present struggle is clearly an issue between capital and labor and it behooves Socialists especially to do all they can to keep the main issue squarely to the front. for wherever capital triumphs over labor the triumph is absolute and white and black laborers will suffer in the long run.

Here is another gross fallacy which I wish to brand. It is generally said that black people can live much cheaper than white people and therefore they are willing to work cheaper than white people. Black people live on less because they get less wages and pay far more for house rent right here In Chicago than white people pay. The house in which I now have a room was formerly rented to a white landlady for $35 per month; now the  colored landlady pays $50 per month for the house with no new improvements Of course the lodgers are all colored and all get less pay than the white lodgers got who were here when the white landlady had the house. But rooms rent for more now because the rent of the house has gone up $15 per month. This is no special case: colored people invariably pay more house rent than white people pay for the same houses and get far less for their labor. We have to live on less than white people because we get less pay and have to pay more rent.

A white pauper lives on far less than a white banker, not because his physical needs are fewer, but because he hasn’t the money. Change the situation and see how it will work out? So also give the black man more wages and he will be able to spend as much as the white man. Facts seems to change so quickly when we look at them from different points of view. I see things from a different point of view to the white man because I am a black man and can see the black man’s side of the case.

I am a journalist and have spent the past six years in Europe studying social and economic questions. I write articles and send them to capitalistic papers and magazines: editors write me that my articles are good and interesting on the whole, but they never seem to find any space to publish what I write. I generally speak for the poor and oppressed, be they white or black, and, of course, my articles are on the wrong side. Let me turn and write for capitalists and tell nice little stories of how they are making the world better and my articles might find place.

I have studied social and economic questions in England where there were no black people and saw for myself that capitalists will exploit any people they can: and all capitalists of all races, nationalities and colors are thoroughly agreed us to their methods of exploitation. But alas: the poor silly workers the world over cannot see far enough as yet to agree to stand firmly together for their rights.

White workers are too much imbued with color prejudices which they have learned from the writings capitalists and articles in capitalistic publications. The workers of the world must be educated by those who have studied social and economic conditions and know facts. It is a sad sight to see white and black workers being used and abused by capitalists in the present strike. Whenever white man smashes a black head in this strike be helps capital to triumph over labor and whenever black man cracks white man’s head he does the same. For as long as capitalists can keep laborers divided and arrayed in hostile camps capital will triumph over labor and all workers, white and black, will suffer in consequence.

White workers and the capitalist press are crying out against black men who have been brought to Chicago to take the places of white men on strike. and not one word has been said for black men. If those poor fellows had known the situation in Chicago, they never would have come here. Have white labor leaders tried to teach these men or have they rather favored the mobbing of innocent black people in the streets of Chicago?

In the Tribune of the 5th Mr. Shea, president of the teamsters, is reported to have said to the employers: You have negroes in here to fight us, and we answer that we have the right to attack them wherever found. If President Shea would try to teach the black men the truth about the whole situation he would find them willing and ready to learn, and labor would, in the end, gain much more than it ever will gain as long as labor leaders teach white laborers to attack black men who are willing to labor for bread and butter under the best conditions they can get.

The Chicago Socialist, sometimes daily sometimes weekly, was published from 1902 until 1912 as the paper of the Chicago Socialist Party. The roots of the paper lie with Workers Call, published from 1899 as a Socialist Labor Party publication, becoming a voice of the Springfield Social Democratic Party after splitting with De Leon in July, 1901. It became the Chicago Socialist Party paper with the SDP’s adherence and changed its name to the Chicago Socialist in March, 1902. In 1906 it became a daily and published until 1912 by Local Cook County of the Socialist Party and was edited by A.M. Simons if the International Socialist Review. A cornucopia of historical information on the Chicago workers movements lies within its pages.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/workers-call-chicago-socialist/050513-chicagosocialist-v06w323.pdf