Andor D. Skotnes, The Black Freedom Movement and the Worker's Movement in Baltimore, 1930-1939, Rutger's PhD, 1991,
Image No: 295
   Enlarge and print image (62K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Andor D. Skotnes, The Black Freedom Movement and the Worker's Movement in Baltimore, 1930-1939, Rutger's PhD, 1991,
Image No: 295
   Enlarge and print image (62K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
295 Almost daily meetings and agitation against the new relief plan, and, in particular, against the dispersal of seamen to hotels and work sites far from the harbor, occurred along the waterfront. By the end of May, though, it appeared as if seamen were reconciling themselves to the new relief plan, and over 400 had re- registered. The MWIU called for a strike against work-relief. On May 28, when 200 unemployed seamen were supposed to begin their work relief assignments, no one showed up. Instead, an anti-relief demonstration joined forces with a interracial group of 50 MWIU-led striking longshoreman, and a fight with the police broke out. The ensuing rumor of a general seamen's strike sent an additional 150 police on to the streets of the harbor area. At this point, disturbances on the waterfront became so numerous that a group of local businessmen petitioned for federal intervention.^ By this time the Centralized Shipping Bureau was also under siege. The Ore Stea^piip lines took the lead in attempting to destroy the CSB (the MWIU charged they did this under direct government orders) by refusing to any longer recruit their crews through the bureau. The Ore campaign against the CSB was joined with a simultaneous campaign to break the MWIU on its ships, and a series of defensive strikes against the Chilore, the Mangore, the Steelore and others occurred, with mixed results. The MWIU believed that the ISU played a key role in the attack on the CSB and the MWIU, accusing it of working hand in glove with the Ore lines by delivering scab crews, and even asserting that the ISU was behind the businessmen's petition to drive the MWIU off the waterfront. In retribution, 300 seamen, according to a MWIU account, stormed the ISU hall in protest of the latter's "scab-herding." Nevertheless, more and more shipowners joined the boycott of the CSB, and by July the chairman of the CSB's United Front Committee was threatening "to organize and force recognition of the CSB by strike action."33 But by July, it was too late. The offensive against the seamen's movement -