"As Debs delivered his first convention address to his union brothers, he didn't linger on the despair of strikers trying to support families on half as much as they'd earned a few years before. He didn't note how extraordinary it was that a walkout of a few locomotive firemen had catalyzed entire communities across the country. He didn't condemn the railroads for their greed or the militias and troops for murdering roughly a hundred people, or even argue that strong, well-organized unions could lead more disciplined strikes free of rioting. No, what he said was this: "A strike at the present time signifies anarchy and revolution, and the one of but a few days ago will never be blotted from the records of memory."
What difference was there between this declaration and a cable from one Thomas Scott to President Hayes, which denounced these "riotous organizations" that must be "taught by experience that the government and the country are both determined... to maintain law and protect property"? What difference was there between the newspapers celebrating (and most were celebrating) the return of "law and order," and Debs's words equating protest with lawless acts of violence that "destroy the last vestige of order" and "stain our hands with the crimson blood of our fellow beings"?"
— Shawn Gude: American Socialist
