² Hillquit, Morris, Socialism Summed Up (New York, 1913), 43.Google Scholar

³ Hillquit, Morris, Socialism in Theory and Practice (New York, 1909)Google Scholar; Hillquit, Socialism Summed Up; Spargo, John, Socialism: A Summary and Interpretation of Socialist Principles (New York, 1912), 75Google Scholar; Bernstein, Eduard, Evolutionary Socialism (New York, 1978), xxii–xxix and 177–79Google Scholar; Engels, Frederick, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (trans. Aveling, Edward, Chicago, 1914)Google Scholar; Miller, Sally M., Victor Berger and the Promise of Constructive Socialism, 1910–1920 (Westport, CT, 1973)Google Scholar; Howe, Irving, Socialism and America (New York, 1985), 3–48Google Scholar; Glenn, Susan A., Daughters of the Shtetl: Life and Labor in the Immigrant Generation (Ithaca, 1990), 139–59 and 167–206Google Scholar; Yellowitz, Irwin, “Morris Hillquit: American Socialism and Jewish Concerns,” American Jewish History 68 (December 1978): 163–88Google Scholar; Marovitz, Sanford E., “The Lonely New Americans of Abraham Cahan,” American Quarterly 20 (Summer 1968): 196–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Pittenger, Mark, American Socialists and Evolutionary Thought, 1870–1920 (Madison, WI, 1993), 15–42.Google Scholar For the transformation of the political economy in the Progressive Era, see Sklar, Martin J., The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890–1916: The Market, the Law, and Politics (Cambridge, UK, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and The United States as a Developing Country: Studies in U.S. History in the Progressive Era and the 1920s (Cambridge, UK, 1992), 37–77; Furner, Mary O., “Knowing Capitalism: Public Investigation and the Labor Question in the Long Progressive Era,” in The State and Economic Knowledge: The American and British Experiences, eds., Furner, Mary O. and Supple, Barry (Cambridge, UK, 1990): 241–86Google Scholar; Livingston, James, Pragmatism and the Political Economy of Cultural Revolution, 1850–1940 (Chapel Hill, 1994)Google Scholar; Ethington, Philip J., The Public City: The Political Construction of Urban Life in San Francisco, 1850–1900 (Cambridge, UK, 1994)Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, MA, 1992)Google Scholar; and Kloppenberg, James T., Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870–1920 (New York, 1986).Google Scholar

⁴ Kipnis, Ira, The American Socialist Movement, 1897–1912 (New York, 1952), 107–22Google Scholar; Fox, Richard W., “The Paradox of ‘Progressive’ Socialism: The Case of Morris Hillquit, 1901–1914,” American Quarterly 26 (May 1974): 127–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Esposito, Anthony V., The Ideology of the Socialist Party of America, 1901–1917 (New York, 1997), 268–70.Google Scholar

⁵ For the SP and neo-Populism or republicanism, see Greene, James R., Grass-Roots Socialism: Radical Movements in the Southwest, 1895–1943 (Baton Rouge, LA, 1978)Google Scholar; Salvatore, Nick, Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist (Urbana, 1982), 59–65 and 79–82Google Scholar; and Esposito, , Ideology of the Socialist Party, 1–8.Google Scholar For the radical republican tradition, see Fink, Leon, Workingmen's Democracy: The Knights of Labor and American Politics (Urbana, 1983)Google Scholar; Oestreicher, Richard Jules, Solidarity and Fragmentation: Working People and Class Consciousness in Detroit, 1875–1900 (Urbana, 1986)Google Scholar; McMath, Robert C. Jr, American Populism: A Social History, 1877–1898 (New York, 1993)Google Scholar; Ritter, Gretchen, Goldbugs and Greenbacks: The Antimonopoly Tradition and the Politics of Finance in America (Cambridge, UK, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Goebel, Thomas, “The Political Economy of American Populism from Jackson to the New Deal,” Studies in American Political Development 11 (Spring 1997): 109–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For alternative views of republicanism in this period, see Ethington, The Public City; Schneirov, Richard, Labor and Urban Politics: Class Conflict and the Origins of Modern Liberalism in Chicago, 1864–1897 (Urbana, 1998)Google Scholar; and Livingston, James, Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, Class, and Corporate Capitalism, 1890–1913 (Ithaca, 1986).Google Scholar

⁶ For varying views on revolution, see Salvatore, , Eugene V. Debs, 194Google Scholar and Dubofsky, Melvyn, We Shall Be All: A History of the Industrial Workers of the World (Chicago, 1969), 155.Google Scholar

⁷ It should be noted that some works downplay the significance of party factionalism. Daniel Bell and James Weinstein both argued that party divisions before the Russian Revolution did not reflect significant ideological differences. Bell claimed that American Socialists were Utopian, “in but not of the world.” Weinstein argued all were on the “left” prior to the Bolshevik uprising. Only after Lenin took power, according to Weinstein, did meaningful factional debates occur. Bell, Daniel, Marxian Socialism in the United States (Princeton, 1967)Google Scholar and Weinstein, James, The Decline of Socialism in America, 1912–1925 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1984).Google Scholar The majority of histories of the SP, however, identify a “right-wing” that attempted to implement socialism gradually, and a “left-wing” that advocated revolution. Many works, such as Shannon's, David, The Socialist Party of America: A History (New York, 1955)Google Scholar, claimed the party had three wings: right, left, and center. The reasons why factionalism did matter are made clear throughout this essay.

⁸ Kloppenberg, Uncertain Victory; Rodgers, Daniel, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge, MA, 1998)Google Scholar; Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers; Sklar, Kathryn Kish, Florence Kelley and the Nation's Work: The Rise of Women's Political Culture, 1830–1900 (New Haven, 1995)Google Scholar; Ladd-Taylor, Molly, Mother Work: Women, Child Welfare, and the State, 1890–1930 (Urbana, 1994)Google Scholar; Sanders, Elizabeth, Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1917 (Chicago, 1999)Google Scholar; Livingston, Pragmatism and Political Economy; and Sklar, Corporate Reconstruction.

⁹ Howe, , Socialism, 34.Google ScholarHerberg, Will, “American Marxist Political Theory,” in Socialism and American Life, vol. 1, eds., Egbert, Donald Drew and Persons, Stow (Princeton, 1952): 521.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Walker, John T., “Socialism in Dayton, Ohio, 1912 to 1925: Its Membership, Organization, and Demise,” Labor History 26 (Summer 1985): 384–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Judd, Richard, Socialist Cities: Municipal Politics and the Grass Roots of American Socialism (Albany, 1989)Google Scholar; McCormick, John S. and Sillito, John R., “Respectable Reformers: Utah Socialists in Power, 1900–1925,” in A World We Thought We Knew: Readings in Utah History, eds., McCormick, and Sillito, (Salt Lake City, 1995): 115–29Google Scholar; Calvert, Jerry W., The Gibraltar: Socialism and Labor in Butte, Montana, 1895–1920 (Helena, MT, 1988)Google Scholar; Stave, Bruce M., ed., Socialism in the Cities (Port Washington, NY, 1975)Google Scholar; Stevens, Errol Wayne, “Labor and Socialism in an Indiana Mill Town, 1905–1921,” Labor History 26 (Summer 1985): 353–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Booth, Douglas E., “Municipal Socialism and City Government Reform: The Milwaukee Experience, 1910–1940,” Journal of Urban History 12 (November 1985): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Hillquit quoted in Lipset, Seymour Martin and Marks, Gary, It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States (New York, 2000), 199.Google Scholar

¹² For the courts' attitudes toward labor in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, see Forbath, William E., Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement (Cambridge, MA, 1991 ), 37–58Google Scholar; Hovenkamp, Herbert, Enterprise and American Law, 1836–1937 (Cambridge, MA, 1991), 207–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ernst, Daniel R., Lawyers against Labor: From Individual Rights to Corporate Liberalism (Urbana, 1995), 90–109.Google Scholar

¹³ Greene, Julie, Pure and Simple Politics: The American Federation of Labor and Political Activism, 1881–1917 (Cambridge, UK, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ By growth I do not only mean ballot box victories. Socialist growth also included increased membership and influence beyond the party.

¹⁵ Brooks, John Graham, American Syndicalism: The I. W. W. (New York, 1913), 130Google Scholar; Williams, Ben H., “Sabotage,” in Rebel Voices: An I.W.W. Anthology, ed., Kornbluh, Joyce L. (Ann Arbor, MI, 1964), 52Google Scholar; and Vincent St. John, “Political Parties and the I.W.W.,” in ibid., 43.

¹⁶ For socialists in the AFL, see Greene, , Pure and Simple Politics, 222–23Google Scholar; for Hillquit on “boring within,” see Socialist Party Proceedings of the First National Congress, 1910 (Chicago, 1910), 65.

¹⁷ Weinstein, , Decline of Socialism, 1–30Google Scholar; Salvatore, , Eugene V. Debs, 255–56Google Scholar; Foner, Philip S., History of the Labor Movement in the United States, vol. 5, The AFL in the Progressive Era, 1910–1915 (New York, 1980), 9–31Google Scholar; and Proceedings: The National Convention of the Socialist Party, 1912, Stenographic Report Wilson E. McDermut and Charles W. Phillips, ed., Spargo, John (Chicago, 1912), 113–37.Google Scholar

¹⁸ David Montgomery first suggested that the sabotage debate was also an argument over collective bargaining. See his “Industrial Democracy or Democracy in Industry? the Theory and Practice of the Labor Movement, 1870–1925,” in Industrial Democracy in America: The Ambiguous Promise, eds., Lichtenstein, Nelson and Harris, Howell John (Cambridge, UK, 1993): 39.Google Scholar

¹⁹ ibid; and Pratt, Norma Fain, Morris Hillquit: A Political History of an American Jewish Socialist (Westport, CT, 1979), 100.Google Scholar

²⁰ Debs, Eugene V., Craft Unionism, originally a speech given in 1905, and later revised and printed (Chicago, 1909), 6–7.Google Scholar

²¹ Eugene V. Debs to Adolph Germer, January 20, 1912, Letters of Eugene V. Debs, vol. 1, ed., Robert Constantine, J. (Urbana, 1990): 444.Google Scholar

²² Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State: 1900–1918 (Boston, 1968), 3–39.Google Scholar

²³ Debs, Eugene V., Unionism and Socialism (Chicago, 1904), 20–21.Google Scholar

²⁴ Debs, Eugene V., The Federal Government and the Chicago Strike (Chicago, 1910), 31.Google Scholar

²⁵ Hillquit, , Socialism in Theory, 216–17Google Scholar; Hillquit, , Socialism Summed Up, 41 and 43.Google Scholar

²⁶ Proceedings 1910 Socialist Party, 65.

²⁷ The Double Edge of Labor's Sword: Discussion and Testimony on Socialism and Trade Unionism before the Commission on Industrial Relations (Chicago, 1914), 69 and 77.

²⁸ The Revolt (San Francisco), May 13, 1911, 2.

²⁹ Calvert, The Gibraltar and McCormick and Sillito, “Respectable Reformers.”

³⁰ Debs, Eugene V., “The Western Labor Movement,” International Socialist Review 3 (November 1902): 264.Google Scholar For the militancy of the WFM, see Dubofsky, Melvyn, “The Origins of Western Working Class Radicalism, 1890–1905,” Labor History 7 (Spring 1966): 131–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Dubofsky, We Shall Be All. Elizabeth Jameson provides an alternative view of western miners beyond the “labor wars” and an in-depth examination of the WFM's endorsement of the SP. Importantly, Jameson points out that Cripple Creek Socialists, mostly hard rock miners, blended Utopian rhetoric with practical demands. See her, All That Glitters: Class, Conflict, and Community in Cripple Creek (Urbana, 1998), 161–96.

³¹ For Debs' quote, see Labor World (Butte), June 2, 1902, 8. On Utopian influences, see Buhle, Paul, Marxism in the United States: Remapping the History of the American Left (London, 1987), 58–85Google Scholar; Thomas, John L., Alternative America: Henry George, Edward Bellamy, Henry Demurest Lloyd and the Adversary Tradition (Cambridge, MA, 1983)Google Scholar; Spann, Edward K., Brotherly Tomorrows: Movements for a Cooperative Society in America, 1820–1920 (New York, 1989)Google Scholar; Haber, Samuel, “The Nightmare and the Dream: Edward Bellamy and the Travails of Socialist Thought,” Journal of American Studies 36 (December 2002): 417–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Salvatore, , Eugene V. Debs, 145–77.Google Scholar

³² Miners' Magazine 1 (June 1900): 34–35. For the letter see vol. 3 of the Miners' Magazine and WFM Executive Board Minutes, December 12, 1903, University of Colorado at Boulder Archives. For other examples of WFM cooperative ventures, see Jameson, , All That Glitters, 245–46.Google Scholar

³³ Miners' Magazine 11 (March 3, 1910): 8; John Ervin Brinley Jr., “The Western Federation of Miners” (Ph.D. diss., University of Utah, 1972): 116–20; Industrial Worker, June 25, 1910, 2. Progressive Era intellectuals recognized this trend. See Walling, William English, “The New Unionism – The Problem of the Unskilled Worker,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 24 (September 1904): 12–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Glocker, Theodore, “Amalgamation of Related Trades in American Unions” American Economic Review 5 (September 1915): 554.Google Scholar Glocker classified only twenty-eight of 133 unions affiliated with the AFL as strictly craft unions.

³⁴ Dubofsky, We Shall Be All; Emmons, David, The Butte Irish: Class and Ethnicity in an American Mining Town, 1875–1925 (Urbana, 1989), 270–78Google Scholar; Mellinger, Philip J., Race and Labor in Western Copper: The Fight for Equality, 1896–1918 (Tucson, AZ, 1995)Google Scholar; Jameson, , All That Glitters, 140–60Google Scholar; and Peck, Gunther, Reinventing Free Labor: Padrones and Immigrant Workers in the North American West, 1880–1930 (Cambridge, UK, 2000), 210–23.Google Scholar

³⁵ Jameson, , All That Glitters, 176–96Google Scholar; McCormick, and Sillito, , “Respectable Reformers”; and Weinstein, Decline, 116–18.Google Scholar

³⁶ Industrial Worker, May 6, 1909, 2.

³⁷ Salvatore, , Eugene V. Debs, 242Google Scholar; Montgomery, David, The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism, 1865–1925 (Cambridge, UK, 1987), 286–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McCormick, and Sillito, , “Respectable Reformers,” 116.Google Scholar

³⁸ Official Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Convention: Western Federation of Miners (Denver, 1904), 13. Brinley, , “WFM,” 112–26.Google Scholar

³⁹ On the shorter hours movement in the Rocky Mountain West, see Enyeart, John P., “‘By Laws of Their Own Making’: Political Culture and the Everyday Politics of the Mountain West Working Class, 1870–1917” (Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado, 2002): 77–88.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Official Report of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention Assembled at Salt Lake City on the Fourth Day of March 1895, to Adopt a Constitution for the State of Utah, vol. 2, 1171; and Holden v. Hardy, 169 US 366 (1898).

⁴¹ Brinley, , “WFM,” 183–84Google Scholar; Forbath, , Law, 43–53Google Scholar; and Skocpol, , Protecting Soldiers, 256–57.Google Scholar

⁴² Official Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Convention of the Western Federation of Miners of America (Denver, 1903), 177; WFM, Executive Board Minutes, December 11, 1905.Google Scholar

⁴³ For discussions of the BMU's contract, see Official Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Convention of the Western Federation of Miners (n.p., 1907), 308–52.

⁴⁴ Industrial Union Bulletin, April 20, 1907, 4.

⁴⁵ Brinley, , “WFM,” 352 and 107.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Miners' Magazine 17 (February 3, 1916): 3.

⁴⁷ Miners' Magazine 12 (August 29, 1912): 6.

⁴⁸ Weinstein, , Dedine of Socialism, 1–118Google Scholar; Miller, Victor Berger, and Esposito, , Ideology, 155–79.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Walker, , “Socialism in Dayton,” 385Google Scholar; Judd, Socialist Cities; Stevens, “Labor and Socialism”; and Booth, “Municipal Socialism.”

⁵⁰ Frisch, Paul Andrew, “The ‘Gibraltar of Unionism’: the Working Class at Butte, Montana, 1878–1906” (Ph.D. diss., University of California Los Angeles, 1992): 331–36Google Scholar; Calvert, , The Gibraltar, 17–35Google Scholar; and International Socialist Review 11 (June 1911): 731–33; ibid., 12 (July 1911): 5–6 and 104–06; ibid., (November 1911): 287–92; ibid., 13 (September 1912): 263–64.

⁵¹ Weinstein, , Decline, 44–45.Google Scholar

⁵² American Labor Union Journal, March 5, 1903, 2.

⁵³ Butte Labor World, 1902–1904 and Montana News, 1904–1907.

⁵⁴ For a different interpretation, see Emmons, , Butte Irish, 243–48 and 263–66.Google Scholar Emmons points out that few BMU members joined the SP, and that most miners, especially the Irish, were conservatives who rejected the party. He does acknowledge that some BMU members broke their traditional Democratic ties to vote for the S P in 1911, but claims that “hard times” led miners to this decision. I contend that like the many skilled AFL workers who supported the evolutionary wing – whom Emmons compares BMU members to – Butte's hard rock miners recognized the commonalities between themselves and the evolutionary Socialists they helped elect.

⁵⁵ Montana Socialist Party Flyer 1911, Socialist Party Papers, Microfilm Edition Reel 99.

⁵⁶ Calvert, , The Gibraltar, 39.Google Scholar For more on the importance of health issues to Western workers in this period, see Derickson, Alan, Workers' Health, Workers' Democracy: The Western Miners' Struggle, 1891–1925 (Ithaca, 1988).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Tomlins, Christopher, Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic (Cambridge, UK, 1993), 232–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grattet, Ryken, “Sociological Perspectives on Legal Change: The Role of the Legal Field in the Transformation of the Common Law of Industrial Accidents,” Social Science History 21 (Fall 1997): 359–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Friedman, Lawrence M. and Ladinsky, Jack, “Social Change and the Law of Industrial Accidents,” in American Law and the Constitutional Order: Historical Perspectives, eds., Friedman, and Scheiber, Harry N. (Cambridge, MA, 1978): 269–71.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Eighth Report of the Bureau of Agriculture, Labor and Industry of the State of Montana For the Year Ending November 30, 1902 (Helena, 1902), 220 and 226–27.

⁵⁹ Friedman, and Ladinsky, , “Social Change,” 272–78.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Eleventh Report of the Bureau of Agriculture, Labor and Industry of the State of Montana For the Year Ending November 30, 1908 (Helena, 1908), 169.

⁶¹ Friedman, and Ladinsky, , “Social Change,” 278–79.Google Scholar

⁶² The Sixteenth Convention of the Montana Federation of Labor (n.p., 1909), 15–32. David Emmons points out that a workingmen's compensation act did pass in 1911, but the version that most resembled the state federation's bill became law in 1915. Emmons, , Butte Irish, 247–48.Google Scholar

⁶³ Montana Socialist, September 14, 1913, 1–3 and January 25, 1914, 1. For the law, see Laws, Resolutions and Memorials of the State of Montana Passed by the 14th Regular Session of the Legislative Assembly (Helena, 1914), 168–218.