A Short Q&A with the Reconsidering Southern Labor History: Race, Class, and Power Contributors
Today’s interview is with Dana M. Caldemeyer, an assistant professor of history at South Georgia State College in Douglas, Georgia.
Tell us a little about your essay, “Unfaithful Followers: Rethinking Southern Non-Unionism in the Late Nineteenth Century.”
My essay is about workers who used the union as a means to achieve an immediate goal, but did not necessarily see value on long-term union membership. I look closely at the 1894 bituminous coal mining strike and the thousands of miners who joined the strike, but remained outside the union. I argue that this strike demonstrates the varied views workers had about unionism and that sometimes workers who were outside the union still supported its goals.
What sparked your interest in labor history?
My interest in labor history came from growing up as part of the working class. I first encountered labor history as an undergraduate and was immediately drawn to these ordinary people who had little wealth and limited education. They were doing the best they could with what they had, but always held out hope for something better. Their daily lives and struggles resonated with me in a way that studying other topics never did.
Why do you think that the study of labor history is important today?
Labor history is crucial to understanding our present day. It can help explain how our society and its problems developed the way they did, can show us past successful and unsuccessful efforts to tackle important problems for society, and helps identify ongoing trends that might on the surface appear to be a problem unique to today. All of this allows us to have deeper understanding of our present problems and can help us develop more nuanced solutions for them.
What are you currently working on?
My current manuscript examines rural working class life in the late nineteenth century to understand why so many workers then, as today, refused to join labor organizations or disobeyed union orders. Focusing primarily on the coal industry, I demonstrate that many rural residents including farmers and miners worked many occupations. These trends not only allowed rural workers to earn a living, but also affected their union membership and allegiance. I argue that contrary to union leaders’ claims, workers’ rejection of unions came not from worker indifference for their own wellbeing, but from their belief that their unions did not adequately address their most pressing concerns.