Resisting Occupation

Taylorville, IL was occupied by the state militia under martial law from September, 1932 through March, 1933. While the stated purposed was to quell violence, repeated bombings and murders occurred during that occupation.

To the PMA and its supporters, the role of the state militia was quite clear; support Peabody Coal and the United Mine Workers and break the strike. Although state government claimed to be non-partisan in the dispute between the unions, its disruption of PMA picket lines and protection of imported strike breakers clearly demonstrated which side state government supported.

While the bloody intervention of state or federal troops on behalf of business interests is an all-too-common story in U.S. labor history, formal opposition to such action by local government is far from ordinary.

After more than a month of oppressive occupation, the Illinois State Journal noted:

"October 17, 1932 - The local city council, at a special meeting tonight, took action to curb through legal channels activities of Illinois National Guard units stationed in the Christian county mining area.

The resolution was presented following the reading of a 4,000-word opinion written by City Attorney Leal W. Reese which cited legal restrictions placed upon the soldiers and declared that men have a right to resist to the extreme attempts made to arrest them illegally.

The opinion declared that military men on duty to quell civil disturbances 'cannot do anything which other peace officers cannot do that they cannot arrest without warrants nor hold prisoners without preferring immediate charges.' The opinion further declared the military authorities have no right to molest peaceable persons on the street nor in public places. It held also that any person thus 'illegally arrested, abused, or assaulted has the right to resist the arrest with force." (emphasis added)

You may recall an earlier entry on the bombing of Mr. Reese's home. His actions to restore civil liberties in Taylorville help explain why he became a target in the mine war.

"Verdict in Springfield"

Here's an online article which was originally published in Time magazine on December 27, 1937. The article was written on the federal conviction of 36 members of the Progressive Miners "of conspiring to blow up trains and thus interfere with 1) the mails and 2) interstate commerce."

While the verdicts dealt a near-fatal blow to the union, trial testimony also pointed to collusion between the coal operators and the United Mine Workers. That testimony was never refuted in the trial. Here's an excerpt from the Illinois State Journal's trial coverage, December 11, 1937.

“W.R. Swafford, Harrisburg, ...testified Friday he was instructed by an official of the Peabody Coal Co. to simulate a gun battle during miners’ riot in Harrisburg in October of 1933 to raise sympathy and get the militia out.

Swafford, ... said he acted under orders of W. C. Craggs,... at that time superintendent of the company’s No. 43 mine near Harrisburg.

... According to previous testimony presented in the trial, ...a mass meeting of miners was held in Harrisburg, a march was made on the mine, a gun battle followed, and troops were called out to restore order.

Swafford, ... said Craggs gave him a sawed-off shot gun and a rifle and four boxes of shells and told him to go out on the mine property to guard the mine’s fan house. ‘If anyone starts shooting,’ Swafford quoted Craggs as instructing him, ‘do all the shooting you can so we can raise sympathy and get the militia in here.’

...He also testified he saw a company-owned truck, covered with sheet iron leave the property about 10 p.m., and asserted he saw three machine guns, rifles, shotguns, ammunition, and a couple of boxes of dynamite in a mine office...

He asserted that earlier in 1933, from June 30 to July 5, he said about two hundred others were requested to stay in the mine to arouse sympathy and get the militia called out. Pressed by Prosecutor Welly K. Hopkins to tell who gave him those orders, the witness replied it was general talk at the time. ‘Didn’t you really stay in the mine because it was heavily picketed?’ Hopkins asked. ‘No,’ he replied, ‘I went home one night and was not molested. The company wanted us to look like we were picketed in.’”

Peabody Denied Strikebreakers Were Used

The use of strikebreakers by Peabody was a contentious issue.

Here's a statement by W.C. Argust, division superintendent of the Peabody Coal Company, reported in the Illinois State Journal, October 11, 1932:

"I read an article in one of the Springfield papers Sunday quoting Jerry Allard, one of the Progressive Mine leaders, as saying that the Peabody Coal company is importing strike breakers here in an attempt to break the strike. That is just another of the infamous lies that is being told the miners to keep their movement alive...

In the reopening of our No. 9 mine at Langleyville we did so only after a sufficient number of men had voluntarily called at the Peabody Coal company office and requested that we reopen the mine that they might be enabled to return to their work."

As it turns out, strikebreakers were being used, apparently recruited in part by the United Mine Workers.