The Right to Bear Arms in the Labor Wars
A local newspaper editorial lashes out against a Democratic convention resolution that sought to ban armed groups during labor disputes, arguing that self-defense is a fundamental right for employers and employees alike.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The Democratic county convention on Saturday passed a resolution demanding that the state legislature make it a felony to bring armed bodies of men into the state, or for any person or corporation to arm bodies of men with a view to intimidate or excite riot. The Post-Intelligencer argues this resolution is absurd. While preventing the importation of armed gangs is one thing, the right of self-defense against illegal invasion of life, liberty, and property is fundamental. No legislature can or should prohibit a man from standing armed on his own premises to defend against an illegal assault, even if that preparation 'intimidates' rioters. The editorial asserts that no court would respect a law that forbids a property owner, whether employer or employee, from protecting his own life and home.
“The right of self-defense against illegal invasion is a primary, fundamental right of individuals and corporations alike, and is rightfully asserted even when it 'intimidates' rioters, or even causes bloodshed.”
This 1892 editorial reflects the intense, often violent, tensions of the Gilded Age labor movement, specifically referencing the Homestead strike. Today, Seattle's debates over property, safety, and the role of police remain highly charged, echoing these same fundamental questions about who has the right to secure a space and what force is justifiable in defense of 'rights.'
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.