Rogers's "Workers against the City"

Donald W. Rogers, a lecturer in the Department of History at Central Connecticut State University, has published Workers against the City: The Fight for Free Speech in Hague v. CIO (University of Illinois Press, 2020):

The 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision Hague v. CIO constitutionalized the fundamental right of Americans, including labor organizers, to assemble and speak in public places. Donald W. Rogers eschews the prevailing view of the case as simply a morality play pitting Jersey City, New Jersey, political boss Frank Hague against the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) and allied civil libertarians. Instead, he utilizes untapped archives and evidence to review Hague's story from street and media battles to district court and Supreme Court deliberations, illuminating trial proceedings from both worker and city perspectives for the first time. His analysis reveals how transformative New Deal-era developments in municipal governance, union organizing, labor politics and constitutional law dominated the conflict, and how assembly and speech rights changed according to judges' reaction to this historical situation.

Clear-eyed and comprehensive, Workers against the City revises the view of a milestone case that continues to affect Americans' constitutional rights today.

Here is an endorsement:

"Skillfully blending the histories of American civil liberties, organized labor, and urban politics, Rogers shows us how a complex set of forces has shaped and limited the rights of modern Americans to assemble and speak their minds in public."--James J. Connolly, author of An Elusive Unity: Urban Democracy and Machine Politics in Industrializing America

–Dan Ernst

Prifogle on Migrant Labor and Female Social Networks in Midcentury Michigan

Emily Prifogle, University of Michigan Law School, has posted Legal Landscapes, Migrant Labor, and Rural Social Safety Nets in Michigan, 1942-1971:

In the 1960s, farmers pressed trespass charges against aid workers providing assistance to agricultural laborers living on the farmers’ private property. Some of the first court decisions to address these types of trespass, such as the well-known and frequently taught State v. Shack (1971), limited the property rights of farmers and enabled aid workers to enter camps where migrants lived. Yet there was a world before Shack, a world in which farmers welcomed onto their land rural religious groups, staffed largely by women from the local community, who provided services to migrant workers. This article uses Michigan as a case study to examine the informal safety net those rural women created and how it ultimately strengthened the very economic and legal structures that left agricultural workers vulnerable. From the 1940s through the 1960s, federal, state, and local law left large gaps in labor protections and government services for migrant agricultural laborers in Michigan. In response, church women created rural safety nets that mobilized local generosity and provided aid. These informal safety nets also policed migrant morality, maintained rural segregation, and performed surveillance of community outsiders, thereby serving the farmers’ goals of having a reliable and cheap labor force.

--Dan Ernst

Boris's "Making the Woman Worker" at WHS

The next meeting of the Washington History Seminar, on Monday, November 16 at 4:00 pm ET, will be devoted to Making the Woman Worker: Precarious Labor and the Fight for Global Standards, 1919-2019, by Eileen Boris, University of California, Santa Barbara.  Sonya Michel, University of Maryland, will comment.  Click here to register for the webinar or watch on the National History Center’s Facebook Page or the Wilson Center website.

Amid the unraveling of standard employment at century’s end, previously excluded home-based and domestic workers have pressed the International Labour Organization (ILO) for rights and recognition. By tracing the construction of the woman worker through ILO labor standards, leading feminist historian Eileen Boris probes paths to equality between those classified as men or women and between women globally, complicating the debate over protective labor legislation and questioning whether the new carework economy is just another name for the old dichotomy between “working women” and “mothers in the home.”

 --Dan Ernst

Bradley and Rowland on women's access to law in England

 Kate Bradley (University of Kent) and Sophie Rowland (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) have published "A poor woman's lawyer? Feminism, the labour movement, and working-class women's access to the law in England, 1890-1935," Women's History Review (17 Aug. 2020). Here's the abstract: 

Women were excluded from both branches of the legal profession before the Sex Discrimination (Removal) Act 1919. Whilst campaigning for women's entry to the law was also part of wider efforts to make the law more accessible. Before and after the 1919 Act, middle-class women were able to offer legal support to working-class women, through feminist and trade unionist networks and the professions that were open to them—factory inspection and social work. By examining key women’s organisations between the 1890s and 1930s, we trace the development of work to both educate women and girls on their legal rights and to directly tackle problems and breaches of the law. We argue that, by looking at the legal activism of women in the factory inspectorate, social work, trade union and women's organisations, fresh insight into the development and ‘mainstreaming’ of working-class claims on citizenship in the early twentieth century can be found.

Further information is available here.

--Mitra Sharafi 

SAPD 34:2

Studies in American Political Development 34:2 (October 2020) is open access through the end of the month:

Racism Is Not Enough: Minority Coalition Building in San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver
Jae Yeon Kim

The Political Effects of Policy Drift: Policy Stalemate and American Political Development
Daniel J. Galvin, Jacob S. Hacker

Privatizing Employment Law: The Expansion of Mandatory Arbitration in the Workplace
 Sarah Staszak

Democratic Representation of all “the People”: Antislavery Petitions in the U.S. Senate
John D. Griffin, Grace Sager 

--Dan Ernst

VanderVelde and Chin on the Reconstruction Congress and the "Chinese Question"

Lea S. VanderVelde, University of Iowa College of Law, and Gabriel Jackson Chin, University of California, Davis School of Law, have posted Sowing the Seeds of Chinese Exclusion as the Reconstruction Congress Debates Civil Rights Inclusion, from Tsinghua China Law Review 12 (2020):185-233:

Frank Leslie's Weekly (1872)(LC)

 During Reconstruction, Congress amended the Constitution to fundamentally reorder the legal and social status of African Americans. Congress faced the challenge of determining how Chinese people would fit in to the emerging constitutional structure. This article draws on a method of digitizing the Congressional Globe to more broadly explore the arguments about Chinese rights and privileges during Reconstruction. Unlike African-Americans, Chinese were part of an international system of trade and diplomacy; treatment of other people of color was understood as a purely domestic question. In addition, while a core feature of Reconstruction was ending the enslavement of African-Americans and overruling Dred Scott by making Africans Americans born in the U.S. citizens and granting them eligibility for naturalization, for Chinese, Congress chose to leave in place racial restrictions on naturalization, which had existed since 1790. This rendered them perpetual foreigners in America. With regard to labor rights, by abolishing slavery, Congress intended to raise up the freedmen, giving African Americans a chance to work on equal terms with other citizens. In the main, Congress continued to treat the Chinese people as constitutive of the so-called “Chinese question,” a nominalization that ascribed to them features of caste, from which there was little possibility of upward mobility. Congress recognized that some Chinese workers in the U.S. who were building railroads or working in mines might be subject to labor exploitation from bosses and from jobbers, sometimes white and sometimes Chinese. However, rather than intervene to liberate Chinese laborers through laws that would free them from involuntary servitude, and give them fair terms on which to compete, Congress eventually moved in another direction: excluding the Chinese altogether in 1882.

--Dan Ernst

Weekend Roundup

• LaborOnline, the blog of the Labor and Working-Class History Association, has been hosting a symposium, introduced by Eileen Boris, on recent LHB Guest Blogger Nate Holdren's Injury Impoverished: Workplace Accidents, Capitalism, and Law in the Progressive Era.

•  Catch the latest Legal History Podcast: Philip Thai discusses his book, The War on Smuggling: Law, Illicit Markets, and State Power on the China Coast with Siobhan Barco. We announced the book here. 

• Over at Strict Scrutiny, Adam Cohen is interviewed about his book Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, And The Sterilization Of Carrie Buck.

• The deadline for applying to the previously announced constitutional history seminar with Josh Chafetz and David Pozen has been extended to September 9.

• The 13th annual Court History and Continuing Legal Education Symposium, “An Election Fraud Case for the Ages: U.S. v. Aczel,” will take place in a virtual session Friday, Nov. 20 from 4 to 5 p.m.  Journalist Sasha Issenberg will explore the story behind U.S. v. Aczel, a trial in federal court of the mayor, chief of police, and other prominent officials in Terre Haute, Indiana, for voter suppression in 1914.  More.

• ICYMI: Martha Jones's search to find out if her grandmother voted (NYT), and Felice Batlan discovers that her great-grandmother lost her US citizenship under the Expatriation Act of 1907 (WaPo).  Garrett Epps on birthright citizenship and Kamala Harris (The Atlantic).

 Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.