Document A: Parson’s Testimony (ORIGINAL)

Mr. (Calvin) Cowgill (Indiana): . . . Can the state control private contracts between individuals?

Mr. Parsons: It cannot under the Constitution as it exists. If you were to ask me the direct question what the State can do, I tell you that the State can do everything and anything.

The Chairman (Hendrick B. Wright of Pennsylvania): Through its constitution?

Mr. Parsons: It can change or abolish its constitution and can set up a monarchy or a republic when it gets ready to do so. With regard to the feasibility of this (eight-hour) law, Congress has the power, under the Constitution, to pass it. We ask it; we demand it, and we intend to have it. If the present Congress will not give it to us we will send men to Congress who will give it to us. . . . The eight-hour league, and the trades unions, and the other organizations of the country that are making this demand do not propose thereby to paralyze industry. They do not propose to bring an industrial confusion or a state of anarchy, or to precipitate revolution or a state of anarchy, or to precipitate revolution in this country. We are peaceable citizens, husbands, fathers. We are citizens of the State and law-abiding men. . . . The working classes simply seek to improve their condition. This is a natural feeling, and I cannot say that there is anything unnecessarily seditious or criminal in such a desire. We simply want less work and more pay, knowing that only through short hours and high wages can our condition be improved. We know this, and hence we struggle for it. We wish to get at it by degrees. . . . The first thing that we demand is a measure that will diminish the immediate power of wealth, and will remove the worst forms of poverty. The immediate power of wealth consists in this power to enforce men to submit to the terms dictated by wealth, out of which men will perform a day’s labor. That is the immediate power of wealth. This is an evil which should be removed, and we want to remove the worst disability of poverty by reducing the hours of labor; by the distributing of work that is to be done more equally among the workingmen. . . By making labor scarce we will increase its value. . . .

Mr. Parsons: . . . Under our system of labor there is no such thing as freedom of contract.

Mr. (J. C.) Sherwin (Illinois): What do you call freedom of contract?

Mr. Parsons: Freedom of contract is where the parties stand on an equality, and where either party is free to accept or reject the offer. . . .

Mr. Parsons: . . . I believe that . . . Congress should . . . relieve labor in the United States (by) . . . the passage of what is known as Wright’s supplementary homestead bill. . . . A great number of people in this city, I am sure, would avail themselves of its advantages. It would be a benefit to those who went, and a benefit to those who remained.

Mr. Sherwin: Do you think it is a good and safe principle of government, for the government to interfere by aiding men directly with money?

Mr. Parsons: I think that if the government aids the people by loaning money to them, the people are simply borrowing money from themselves. It is their own money, and surely they have a right to what they please with their own.

Mr. Sherwin: Then if that were so, the man who paid the largest tax would have the right to the largest loan.

Mr. Parsons: Yes, if this was a government of the wealthy classes, but it is a government of the people. . . .

Source: U.S. Congress, House, Investigation by a Select Committee of the House of Representatives relative to the Causes of the General Depression in Labor and Business etc, 45th Cong.3d. Session, Mis. Doc. No. 29 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1879).

Document B: Parsons on Anarchy (ORIGINAL)

Anarchy is anti-government, anti-rulers, anti-dictators, anti-bosses. . . . Anarchy is the negation of force; the elimination of all authority in social affairs; it is the denial of the right of domination of one man over another. It is the diffusion of rights, of power, of duties, equally and freely among all the people.

But Anarchy, like many other words, is defined in Webster’s dictionary as having two meanings. In one place it is defined to mean “without rulers or governors.” In another place it is defined to mean, “disorder and confusion.” This latter meaning is what we call “capitalistic anarchy,” such as is now witnessed in all portions of the world and especially in this courtroom; the former, which means without rulers, is what we denominate communistic anarchy, which will be ushered in with the social revolution.

Socialism is a term which covers the whole range of human progress and advancement. . . . I think I have a right to speak of this matter, because I am tried here as a socialist. I am condemned as a socialist. . . . If you are going to put me to death, then let the people know what it is for.

Socialism is defined by Webster as “a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed.” Therefore everything in the line of progress, in civilization in fact, is socialistic.

There are two distinct phases of socialism in the labor movement throughout the world today. One is known as anarchism, without political government or authority; the other is known as state socialism or paternalism, or governmental control of everything. The state socialist seeks to ameliorate and emancipate the wage-laborers by means of law, by legislative enactments. The state socialists demand the right to choose their own rulers. Anarchists would have neither rulers nor lawmakers of any kind. The anarchists seek the same ends [the abolition of wage-slavery] by the abrogation of law, by the abolition of all government, leaving the people free to unite or disunite as fancy or interest may dictate, coercing no one. . . .

We are charged with being the enemies of “Law and order,” as breeders of strife and confusion. Every conceivable bad name and evil design was imputed to us by the lovers of power and haters of freedom and equality. Even the workingmen in some instances caught the infection, and many of them joined in the capitalistic hue and cry against the anarchists. Being satisfied of ourselves that our purpose was a just one, we worked on undismayed, willing to labor and to wait for time and events to justify our cause. We began to allude to ourselves as anarchists and that name, which was at first imputed to us as a dishonor, we came to cherish and defend with pride. What’s in a name? But names sometimes express ideas, and ideas are everything.

What, then, is our offense, being anarchists? The word anarchy is derived from the two Greek words an, signifying no, or without, and arche, government; hence anarchy means no government. Consequently anarchy means a condition of society which has no king, emperor, president or ruler of any kind. In other words, anarchy is the social administration of all affairs by the people themselves; that is to say, self-government, individual liberty. Such a condition of society denies the right of majorities to rule over or dictate to minorities. Though every person in the world agree upon a certain plan and only one objects thereto, the objector would, under anarchy, be respected in his natural right to go his own way. . . .

The great natural law of power derived alone from association and cooperation will of necessity and from selfishness be applied by the people in the production and distribution of wealth, and what the trades unions and labor organizations seek now to do, but are prevented from doing because of obstructions and coercions, will under perfect liberty—anarchy—come easiest to hand. Anarchy is the extension of the boundaries of liberty until it covers the whole range of the wants and aspirations of man. . . .

The anarchists are the advance-guard in the impending social revolution. They have discovered the cause of the worldwide discontent which is felt but not yet understood by the toiling millions as a whole. The effort now being made by organized and unorganized labor in all countries to participate in the making of laws which they are forced to obey will lay bare to them the the secret source of their enslavement to capital. Capital is a thing—it is property. Capital is the stored up, accumulated savings of past labor . . . the resources of life, the means of subsistence. These things are, in a natural state, the common heritage of all for the free use of all, and they were so held until their forcible seizure and appropriation by a few. Thus the common heritage of all, seized by violence and fraud, was afterwards made the property—capital—of the usurpers, who erected a government and enacted laws to perpetuate and maintain their special privileges. The function, the only function of capital is to confiscate the labor-product of the propertyless, non-possessing class, the wage-workers. The origin of government was in violence and murder. Government disinherits and enslaves the governed. Government is for slaves; free men govern themselves. . . .The right to live, to equality of opportunity, to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is yet to be acquired by the producers of all wealth. . . . Legalized capital and the state stand or fall together. They are twins. The liberty of labor makes the state not only unnecessary, but impossible. When the people—the whole people—become the state, that is, participate equally in governing themselves, the state of necessity ceases to exist. . .

Anarchy, therefore, is liberty; is the negation of force, or compulsion, or violence.

It is the precise reverse of that which those who hold and love power would have their oppressed victims believe it is. . . .

The great class-conflict now gathering throughout the world is created by our social system of industrial slavery. Capitalists could not if they would, and would not if they could, change it. This alone is to be the work of the proletariat, the disinherited, the wage-slave, the sufferer. Nor can the wage-class avoid this conflict. Neither religion nor politics can solve it or prevent it. It comes as a human, an imperative necessity. Anarchists do not make the social revolution; they prophesy its coming. Shall we then stone the prophets? . . . .

In the line of evolution and historical development, anarchy—liberty—is next in order. With the destruction of the feudal system, and the birth of commer- cialism and manufactories in the sixteenth century, a contest long and bitter and bloody, lasting over a hundred years, was waged for mental and religious liberty. The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with their sanguinary conflicts, gave to man political equality and civil liberty, based on the monopolization of the resources of life. . . .

All over the world the fact stands undisputed that the political is based upon, and is but the reflex of the economic system, and hence we find that whatever the political form of the government, whether monarchical or republican, the average social status of the wage-workers is in every country identical.

The class struggle of the past century is history repeating itself; it is the evolutionary growth preceding the revolutionary denouement. Though liberty is a growth, it is also a birth, and while it is yet to be, it is also about to be born. Its birth will come through travail and pain, through bloodshed and violence. It cannot be prevented. . . .

An anarchist is a believer in liberty, and as I would control no man against his will, neither shall anyone rule over me with my consent. Government is compulsion; no one freely consents to be governed by another—therefore, there can be no just power of government.

Anarchy is perfect liberty, is absolute freedom of the individual. Anarchy has no schemes, no programmes, no systems to offer or to substitute for the existing order of things. Anarchy would strike from humanity every chain that binds it, and say to mankind: "Go forth! you are free! Have all, enjoy all!"

Source: Albert R. Parsons, “What is Anarchism?” Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, as Defined by Some of its Apostles (Chicago, 1887). Reprinted in Dave Roediger and Franklin Rosemont, eds. Haymarket Scrapbook (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company, 1986), 27–28.

Document D: NYT Article (ORIGINAL)

Document E: Parson’s Letter (ORIGINAL)

Cook County Bastille, Cell No. 29,

Chicago, August 20, 1886

My Darling Wife:

Our verdict this morning cheers the hearts of tyrants throughout the world, and the result will be celebrated by King Capital in its drunken feast of flowing wine from Chicago to St. Petersburg. Nevertheless, our doom to death is the handwriting on the wall, foretelling the downfall of hate, malice, hypocrisy, judicial murder, oppression, and the domination of man over his fellowman. The oppressed of earth are writhing in their legal chains. The giant Labor is awakening. The masses, aroused from their stupor, will snap their petty chains like reeds in the whirlwind.

We are all creatures of circumstance; we are what we have been made to be. This truth is becoming clearer day by day.

There was no evidence that any one of the eight doomed men knew of, or advised, or abetted the Haymarket tragedy. But what does that matter? The privileged class demands a victim, and we are offered a sacrifice to appease the hungry yells of an infuriated mob of millionaires who will be contented with nothing less than our lives. Monopoly triumphs! Labor in chains ascends the scaffold for having dared to cry out for liberty and right!

Well, my poor, dear wife, I, personally, feel sorry for you and the helpless little babes of our loins.

You I bequeath to the people, a woman of the people. I have one request to make of you: Commit no rash act to yourself when I am gone, but take up the great cause of Socialism where I am compelled to lay it down.

My children—well, their father had better die in the endeavor to secure their liberty and happiness than live contented in a society which condemns nine-tenths of its children to a life of wage-slavery and poverty. Bless them; I love them unspeakably, my poor helpless little ones.

Ah, wife, living or dead, we are as one. For you my affection is everlasting. For the people, humanity. I cry out again and again in the doomed victim’s cell: Liberty! Justice! Equality!

Albert R. Parsons.

Source: Lucy Parsons, Life of Albert R. Parsons (Chicago: 1889), 211–212.

Document F: Mayor Harrison Testimony (ORIGINAL)

On the morning of Monday, August 2, the defense placed its first witness on the stand in the person of CARTER H. HARRISON, Mayor of Chicago. We have already alluded to his testimony in part. He said that on the morning of the 4th he "received information of the issuance of a circular of a peculiar character," calling the Haymarket meeting. He directed the chief of police that if anything should be said at that meeting "that might call out a recurrence of such proceedings as at McCormick's factory, the meeting should be dispersed. I believed that it was better for myself to be there and disperse the meeting myself instead of leaving it to any policeman." He heard Spies' speech "and all of Mr. Parsons up to the time I left, with the exception of about five or ten minutes, during which I went over to the station. When I judged that Mr. Parsons was looking towards the close of his speech I went over to the station, spoke to Captain Bonfield and determined to go home, but instead of going immediately I went back to hear a little more; staid there about five minutes longer and then left. Within about twenty minutes from the time that I left the meeting I heard the sound of the explosion of the bomb at my house.

"I did in fact take no action at the meeting about dispersing it. There were occasional replies from the audience as ‘shoot him,’ ‘hang him,’ or the like, but I do not think from the directions in which they came, here and there and around, that there were more than two or three hundred actual sympathizers with the speakers. Several times cries of ‘hang him,’ would come from a boy in the outskirts, and the crowd would laugh. I felt that a majority of the crowd were idle spectators, and the replies nearly as much what might be called ‘guying’ as absolute applause. Some of the replies were evidently bitter; they came from immediately around the stand. The audience numbered from 800 to 1,000. The people in attendance, so far as I could see before the speaking commenced, were apparently laborers and mechanics, and the majority of them not English-speaking people, mostly Germans. There was no suggestion made by either of the speakers for the immediate use of force or violence toward any person that night; if there had been I should have dispersed them at once. When I went to the station during Parson's speech, I stated to Captain Bonfield that I thought the speeches were about over; that nothing had occurred yet or looked likely to occur to require interference, and that he had better issue orders to his reserves at the other stations to go home, I don't remember hearing Parsons call ‘To arms! To arms! To arms!’"

Source: Mayor Harrison of Chicago actually attended the demonstration, but left right before the violence erupted. He gave his testimony at the trial on August 2, 1886.

Albert Parsons