This
Labor Day I recall an episode in both the history of labor in the
United States and in the history of the Catholic Church in America. The
last half of the nineteenth century was a time of labor strife, as
businesses grew larger, the fruit of the ongoing Industrial Revolution,
and workers fought for improvement of working conditions that by any
standard were frequently abysmal. Prior to the Civil War apologists for
slavery often argued that the average slave in the South was better
fed, better housed and better clothed than the average industrial worker
in the North. This of course overlooked the entire question of
liberty, but there were enough terrible examples of wretched working
conditions in the North to give the argument facile support.
Unions sprang up to represent workers.
One of the largest in its day was the Knights of Labor founded in
1868. Successful in several large strikes, by 1886 the membership
totaled 700,000, perhaps a majority of whom were Catholic. In 1886 the
Archbishop of Quebec condemned the Knights in Canada based upon the
secrecy that attended the meetings of the organization and forbade
Catholics to join it.
The American hierarchy voted 10 to 2
against condemning the Knights. Archbishop James Gibbons was going to
Rome in 1887 to receive his red hat as Pope Leo XIII had made him a
Cardinal. While there he took the opportunity to submit a lengthy
letter in support of the Knights.
Although the letter bears the name of
Gibbons, it was probably written by his friend Bishop John Ireland
of Saint Paul, who had long been active in support of the rights of
workers. The letter did the trick and the Vatican announced that the
Knights were not to be condemned. The arguments made in the letter had
an impact on Pope Leo XIII and helped lay the groundwork for his
historic encyclical
Rerum Novarum (1891)
in which he defended the rights of workers to organize to seek better
working conditions. Ironically the subject matter of the letter, the
Knights of Labor, was in decline, too many of its strikes having
involved violence which the leadership of the Knights condemned, but
which tarnished the Knights in the eyes of the public. The Knights
would cease to operate as a labor union in 1900, newer unions taking the
place of this pioneering organization.
The letter of Cardinal Gibbons stressed
that Catholic workers in America who belonged to labor organizations
were not hostile to the Church as often occurred in Europe where Unions
were organized by Leftist and Anarchist groups. In America most
Americans supported the workers in their struggle to improve their lot,
with both major political parties vying to pass legislation aiding
workers. In short, the letter explained American labor and
political conditions to the Vatican and how these differed substantially
from those existing in Europe. The letter and the decision of the
Vatican were good examples of effective communication between American
ecclesiastics and Rome. Here is the text of the letter:
To His Eminence Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda:
Your Eminence:
In submitting to the Holy See the
conclusions which, after several months of attentive observation and
reflection, seem to me to sum up the truth concerning the association of
the Knights of Labor, I feel profoundly convinced of the vast
importance of the consequences attaching to this question, which is but a
link in the great chain of the social problems of our day, and
especially of our country.
In treating this question I have been
very careful to follow as my constant guide the spirit of the encyclical
letters, in which our Holy Father Leo XIII has so admirably set forth
the dangers of our times and their remedies, as well as the principles
by which we are to recognize associations condemned by the Holy See.
Such was also the guide of the Third Plenary Council of
Baltimore in its teachings concerning the principles to be followed and
the dangers to be shunned by the faithful either in the choice
or in the establishment of those various forms of association toward
which the spirit of our popular institutions so stronglyimpels
them. And, considering the evil consequences that might result from a
mistake in the treatment of organizations which often count
their members by thousands and hundreds of thousands, the council
wisely ordained that, when an association is spread over several
dioceses, not even the Bishop of one of these dioceses shall condemn it,
but shall refer the case to a standing committee consisting of all the Archbishops of the United States; and even these are not authorized to condemn, unless their sentence be unanimous;
and in case they fail to agree unanimously, then only the supreme
tribunal of the Holy See can impose a condemnation; all this in order to
avoid error and confusion of discipline.
This committee of Archbishops held a
meeting towards the end of last October, at which the association of the
Knights of Labor was specially
considered. To this we were not impelled by the request of any of our
Bishops, for none of them had asked it; and I must add
that among all the Bishops we know of but two or three who desire the
condemnation. But our reason was the importance attached to
the question by the Holy See itself, and this led us to examine it with
all possible care. After our deliberations, the result of which
has already been communicated to the Sacred Congregation of the
Propaganda, only two out of the twelve Archbishops voted for
condemnation; and their reasons were powerless to convince the others of
either the justice or the prudence of such a condemnation.
In the following considerations I wish
to state in detail the reasons which determined the vote of the great
majority of the committee — reasons whose truth and force seem to me all
the more evident after this lapse of time; nor will I fail to do justice to the arguments advanced on the other side :
1. In the first place, though there may
be found in the constitution, laws and official declarations of the
Knights of Labor things that we
would not approve, still, we have failed to find in them those elements
so clearly pointed out by the Holy See, which would class them among condemned associations :
(a) In their form of initiation there is no oath.
(b) The obligation to secrecy by which
they keep the knowledge of their business from enemies or strangers is
not such as to hinder Catholics
from manifesting everything to competent ecclesiastical authority, even
outside of confession. This has been positively declared to us by their chief officers.
(c) They make no promise of blind
obedience. The object and laws of the association are distinctly
declared, and the obligation of obedience does not go beyond them.
(d) They not only profess no hostility
against religion or the Church, but their declarations are quite to the
contrary. The Third Plenary Council commands that condemnation shall not
be passed on any association without the previous hearing
of its officers or representatives. Now, their president, when sending
me a copy of their constitution, declared that he is a
devoted Catholic; that he practises his religion faithfully and
receives the sacraments regularly; that he belongs to no Masonic society
or other association condemned by the Church; that he knows nothing in
the organization of the Knights of Labor contrary to the laws of the
Church; that, with filial submission, he begs the pastors of the Church
to examine their constitution and laws, and to point out anything they
may find objectionable, promising to see to its correction. Assuredly, there is in all this no hostility to the authority of the Church, but, on the contrary, a disposition in every way praiseworthy.
After their convention, held last year in Richmond, he and several of the principal members, devout Catholics, made similar declarations concerning the action of that convention, the documents of which we expect to receive shortly.
(e) Nor do we find in this organization
any hostility to the authority and laws of our country. Not only does
nothing of the kind appear in their
constitution and laws, but the heads of our civil government treat with
respect the cause which such associations represent.
The President of the United States told me personally, a few weeks ago,
that he then had under consideration a proposed law for the
amelioration of certain social grievances, and that he had had a long
conversation on these topics with Mr. Powderly, the president of the Knights of Labor. The Congress of the United States, in compliance with the views presented by President
Cleveland in his annual message, is at present engaged in framing
measures for the improvement of the condition of the laboring classes,
in whose complaints they acknowledge that there is a great deal of
truth. And our political parties, far from considering them the enemies
of the country, vie with each other in championing the evident rights of
the workingmen, who seek not to
resist or overthrow the laws, but only to obtain just legislation by
constitutional and legitimate means.
These considerations, which show that
in these associations those elements are not to be found which the Holy
See has condemned, lead us to study, in the second place, the evils which the association contends against and the nature of the conflict.
2. That there exist among us, as in all
other countries of the world, grave and threatening social evils,
public injustices which call for
strong resistance and legal remedy, is a fact which no one dares to deny
— a fact already acknowledged by the Congress and the
President of the United States. Without entering into the sad details
of these evils, whose full discussion is not necessary, I will only
mention that monopolies, on the part of both individuals and of
corporations, have everywhere called forth not only the complaints
of our working classes, but also the opposition of our public men and
legislators; that the efforts of monopolists, not always
without success, to control legislation to their own profit, cause
serious apprehensions among the disinterested friends of liberty;
that the heartless avarice which, through greed of gain, pitilessly
grinds not only the men, but even the women and children in various
employments, makes it clear to all who love humanity and justice that it
is not only the right of the laboring classes
to protect themselves, but the duty of the whole people to aid them in
finding a remedy against the dangers with which both civilization and social order are menaced by avarice, oppression and corruption.
It would be vain to dispute either the
existence of the evils, or the right of legitimate resistance, or the
necessity of a remedy. At most, a doubt might be raised about the
legitimacy of the form of resistance and of the remedy employed by the
Knights of Labor. This, then, is the next point to be examined.
3. It can hardly be doubted that, for
the attainment of any public end, association — the organization of all
interested — is the most efficacious means — a means altogether natural
and just. This is so evident, and besides, so conformable to the genius
of our country, of our essentially popular social conditions, that it is
unnecessary to insist upon it. It is almost the only means to public
attention, to give force to the most legitimate resistance, to add
weight to the most just demands.
Now, there already exists an organization which presents innumerable attractions and advantages, but with which our Catholic workingmen,
filially obedient to the Holy See, refuse to unite themselves; this is
the Masonic Order, which exists everywhere in our country
and which, as Mr. Powderly has expressly pointed out to us, unites
employers and employed in a brotherhood very advantageous to the latter,
but which numbers in its ranks hardly a single Catholic. Nobly
renouncing advantages which the Church and conscience
forbid, our workingmen join associations in no way in conflict with
religion, seeking nothing but mutual protection and help,
and the legitimate assertion of their rights. Must they here also find
themselves threatened with condemnation, hindered from their only means
of self-defense?
4. Let us now consider the objections made against this sort of organization :
(a) It is objected that in such
organization, Catholics are mixed with Protestants, to the peril of
their faith. Naturally, yes; they
are mixed with Protestants at their work; for, in a mixed people like
ours, the separation of religious creeds in civil affairs is an impossibility. But to suppose that the faith of our Catholics suffers thereby is not to know the Catholic working men of America, who are not like the working men of so many European countries — misguided children, estranged from their Mother, the Church,
and regarding her with suspicion and dread — but intelligent,
well-instructed, and devoted Catholics, ready to give their blood,
if necessary, as they continually give their hard-earned means, for her
support and protection. And, in fact, it is not here a question of
Catholics mixed with Protestants, but rather that Protestants are
admitted to share in the advantages of an association, many of whose
members and officers are Catholics; and in a country like ours, their exclusion would be simply impossible.
(b) But it is asked, instead of such an
organization could there not be confraternities, in which the working
men would be united under the
direction of the clergy and the influence of religion? I answer frankly
that I do not consider this either possible or necessary
in our country. I sincerely admire the efforts of this sort which are
made in countries where the working people are led astray by the enemies
of religion; but thanks be to God, that is not our condition. We find
that in our country the presence and direct
influence of the clergy would not be advisable where our citizens,
without distinction of religious belief, come together in regard
to their industrial interests alone. Short of that, we have abundant
means for making our working people faithful Catholics; and simple good sense advises us not to go to extremes.
(c) Again, it is objected that, in such organizations, Catholics are exposed to the evil influences of the most dangerous associates, even of atheists, communists and anarchists. That is true; but it is one of those trials of faith which our brave American
Catholics are accustomed to meet almost daily, and which they know how
to face with good sense and firmness. The press of our
country tells us, and the president of the Knights of Labor has related
to us, how these violent, aggressive elements have endeavored to
control the association, or to inject poison into its principles; but
they also inform us with what determination these machinators have been repulsed and beaten.
The presence among our citizens of those dangerous social elements which have mostly come from certain countries of Europe, is assuredly
for us an occasion of great regret and of vigilant precautions ; it is a
fact, however, which we have to accept, but which the
close union between the Church and her children which exists in our
country renders comparatively free from danger. In truth, the only thing
from which we would fear serious danger would be a cooling of this
relationship between the Church and her children; and I know nothing
that would be more likely to occasion it than imprudent condemnations.
(d) A specially weighty charge is drawn
from the outbursts of violence, even to bloodshed, which have
accompanied several of the strikes
inaugurated by labor organizations. Concerning this, three things are to
be remarked — first, strikes are not an invention of
the Knights of Labor, but a means almost everywhere and always resorted
to by the working classes to protect themselves against what
they consider injustice, and in assertion of what they believe to be
their just rights; secondly, in such a struggle of the poor
and indignant multitudes against hard and obstinate monopoly, outbursts
of anger are almost as inevitable as they are greatly to
be regretted; thirdly, the laws and the chief authorities of the
Knights of Labor, far from encouraging violence or the occasions of it,
exercise a powerful influence to hinder it,and to retain strikes within
the limits of good order and of legitimate action.
A careful examination of the acts of
violence accompanying the struggle between capital and labor last year
leaves us convinced that it would
be unjust to attribute them to the association of the Knights of Labor ;
for this association was but one among the numerous labor organizations
that took part in the strikes, and their chief officers used every possible effort, as disinterested witnesses testify, to appease the anger of the multitudes, and to hinder the excesses, which therefore,
in my judgment, could not justly be attributed to them. Doubtless,
among the Knights of Labor, as among the thousands of other
Working men, there are to be found passionate or even wicked men who
have committed inexcusable deeds of violence, and have instigated
their associates to the same; but to attribute this to the association
would, it seems to me, be as unreasonable as to attribute to the Church
the follies or the crimes of her children against which she strives and
protests.
I repeat that, in such a struggle of
the great masses of the people against the mail-clad power which, as it
is acknowledged, often refuses them the simple rights of humanity and justice, it is vain to expect that every error and every act of violence can be avoided;
and to dream that this struggle can be hindered, or that we can deter
the multitudes from organizing, which is their only hope
of success, would be to ignore the nature and forces of human society
in times like ours. Christian prudence evidently counsels us
to hold the hearts of the multitudes by the bonds of love, in order to
control their actions by the principles of faith, justice and
charity; to acknowledge frankly what is true and just in their cause,
in order to deter them from what is false and criminal, and
thus to turn into a legitimate, peaceable and beneficent contest what
might easily, by a course of repulsive severity, become for the masses
of our people a dread volcanic force like unto that which society fears
and the Church deplores in Europe.
Upon this point I insist strongly,
because, from an intimate acquaintance with the social conditions of our
country, I am profoundly convinced that here we are touching upon a subject which not only concerns the rights of the working classes, who ought to be especially
dear to the Church which our Lord sent forth to preach His Gospel to
the poor, but with which are intimately bound up the fundamental
interests of the Church and of human society for the future. This is a
point which I desire, in a few additional words,to develop more clearly.
5. Whoever meditates upon the ways in
which Divine Providence is guiding mankind in our days can not fail to
remark how important is the part
which the power of the people takes in shaping the events of the
present, and which it is evidently destined to take in molding the destinies of the future. We behold, with profound regret, the efforts of the prince of darkness to make this power dangerous to the social weal by withdrawing the masses of the people from the influence of religion, and impelling them towards the
ruinous paths of license and anarchy. Hitherto our country has
presented a spectacle of a most consolingly different character —that
of a popular power regulated by love of good order, respect for
religion, by obedience to the authority of the laws; not a democracy of
license and violence, but that true democracy which aims at the general
prosperity through the means of sound principles and good social order.
In order to preserve so desirable a state of things it is absolutely necessary that religion should continue to possess theaffections
and thus rule the conduct of the multitudes. As Cardinal Manning has
well written, ‘a new task is before us. The Church has
no longer to deal with Parliaments and princes, but with the masses and
with the people. Whether we will or no, this is our work; we need a new
spirit and a new law of life.’ To lose influence over the people would
be to lose the future altogether ; and it is
by the heart, far more than by the understanding, that we must hold and
guide this immense power, so mighty either for good or for evil.
Among all the glorious titles which the
Church’s history has deserved for her there is not one which at present
gives her so great influence as that of ‘Friend of the People’.
Assuredly, in our democratic country, it is this title which wins for
the Catholic Church not only the enthusiastic devotedness of the
millions of her children, but also the respect and admiration of all our
citizens, whatever be their religious belief. It is the power of this
title which renders persecution almost an impossibility, and which draws
towards our Holy Church the great heart of the American people.
And since it is acknowledged by all
that the great questions of the future are not those of war, of commerce
or of finance, but the social
questions — the questions which concern the improvement of the condition
of the great popular masses, and especially of the working
people — it is evidently of supreme importance that the Church should
always be found on the side of humanity, — of justice towards the
multitudes who compose the body of the human family. As the same
Cardinal Manning has wisely written, ‘I know
I am treading on a very difficult subject, but I feel confident of
this, that we must face it, and that we must face it calmly, justly,
and with a willingness to put labor and the profits of labor second —
the moral state and domestic life of the whole working population first.
I will not venture to draw up such an act of Parliament further than to
lay down this principle. . . . These things
(the present condition of the poor in England) can not go on; these
things ought not to go on. The accumulation of wealth in the
land, the piling up of wealth like mountains, in the possession of
classes or individuals, can not go on. No Commonwealth can rest on such foundations.’
In our country, above all, this social
amelioration is the inevitable programme of the future, and the position
which the Church should hold towards it is surely obvious. She can certainly not favor the extremes to which the poor multitudes are naturally inclined;
but, I repeat, she must withhold them from these extremes by the bonds
of affection, by the maternal desire which she will manifest
for the concession of all that is just and reasonable in their demands,
and by the maternal blessing which she will bestow upon every legitimate means for improving the condition of the people.
6. Now let us consider for a moment the
consequences which would inevitably follow from a contrary course —
from a course of want of sympathy for the working class, of suspicion
for their aims, of ready condemnation for their methods.
(a) First, there would be the evident
danger of the Church’s losing, in popular estimation, her right to be
considered the friend of the people. The logic of the popular heart goes
swiftly to its conclusions, and this conclusion would be most
pernicious both for the people and for the Church. To lose the heart of
the people would be a misfortune for which the friendship of the few
rich and powerful would be no compensation.
(b) There would be a great danger of
rendering hostile to the Church the political power of our country,
which has openly taken sides with the millions who are demanding justice
and the improvement of their condition. The accusation of being
un-American — that is to say, alien to our national spirit — is the most
powerful weapon which the enemies of the Church can employ against her.
It was this cry which aroused the Know Nothing persecution thirty years
ago, and the same would be used again if the opportunity offered. To
appreciate the gravity of this danger it is well to remark that not only
are the rights of the working classes loudly proclaimed by each of our
two great political parties, but it is not improbable that, in our
approaching national elections, there will be a candidate for the office
of President of the United States as the special representative of the
popular complaints and demands.
Now, to seek to crush by an
ecclesiastical condemnation an organization which represents more than
500,000 votes, and which has already so respectable and so universally
recognized a place in the political arena, would, to speak frankly, be
considered by the American people as not less ridiculous than rash. To
alienate from ourselves the friendship of the people would be to run
great risk of losing the respect which the Church has won in the
estimation of the American nation, and of forfeiting the peace and
prosperity which form so admirable a contrast with her condition in some
so-called Catholic countries. Angry utterances have not been wanting of
late, and it is well that we should act prudently.
(c) A third danger — and the one which
most keenly touches our hearts — is the risk of losing the love of the
children of the Church, and of pushing them into an attitude of
resistance against their Mother. The world presents no more beautiful
spectacle than that of their filial devotion and obedience; but it is
well to recognize that, in our age and in our country, obedience can not
be blind. We would greatly deceive ourselves if we expected it. Our
Catholic working men sincerely believe that they are only seeking
justice, and seeking it by legitimate means. A condemnation would be
considered both false and unjust, and, therefore, not binding. We might
preach to them submission and confidence in the Church’s judgment; but
these good dispositions could hardly go so far. They love the Church,
and they wish to save their souls; but they must also earn their living,
and labor is now so organized that without belonging to the
organization, it is almost impossible to earn one’s living.
Behold, then, the consequences to be
feared. Thousands of the Church’s most devoted children, whose affection
is her greatest comfort, and whose free offerings are her chief
support, would consider themselves repulsed by their Mother and would
live without practising their religion. Catholics who have hitherto
shunned the secret societies would be sorely tempted to join their
ranks. The Holy See, which has constantly received from the Catholics of
America proofs of almost unparalleled devotedness, would be considered
not as a paternal authority, but as a harsh and unjust power. Surely
these are consequences which wisdom and prudence counsel us to avoid.
7. But, besides the dangers that would
result from such a condemnation, and the impracticability of putting it
into effect, it is also very important that we should carefully consider
another reason against condemnation, arising from the unstable and
transient character of the organization in question. It is frequently
remarked by the press and by attentive observers that this special form
of association has in it so little permanence that, in its present
shape, it is not likely to last many years. Whence it follows that it is
not necessary, even if it were just and prudent, to level the sole
condemnations of the Church against so evanescent an object. The social
agitation itself will, indeed, last as long as there are social evils to
be remedied; but the forms of organization meant for the attainment of
this end are naturally provisional and short-lived. They are also very
numerous, for I have already remarked that the Knights of Labor is only
one among many labor organizations.
To strike, then, at one of these forms,
would be to commence a war without system and without end; it would be
to exhaust the forces of the Church in chasing a crowd of changing and
uncertain spectres. The American people behold with perfect composure
and confidence the progress of our social contest, and have not the
least fear of not being able to protect themselves against any excesses
or dangers that may occasionally arise. Hence, to speak with the most
profound respect, but also with the frankness which duty requires of me,
it seems to me that prudence suggests, and that even the dignity of the
Church demands, that we should not offer to America an ecclesiastical
protection for which she does not ask, and of which she believes she has
no need.
8. In all this discussion, I have not
at all spoken of Canada, nor of the condemnation concerning the Knights
of Labor in Canada for we would consider it an impertinence on our part
to meddle with the ecclesiastical affairs of another country which has a
Hierarchy of its own, and with whose social conditions we do not
pretend to be acquainted. We believe, however, that the circumstances of
a people almost entirely Catholic, as in lower Canada, must be very
different from those of a mixed population like ours; moreover, that the
documents submitted to the Holy Office are not the present constitution
of the organization in our country, and that we, therefore, ask nothing
involving an inconsistency on the part of the Holy See, which passed
sentence ‘localiter et juxta exposita.’
It is of the United States that we
speak, and we trust that we are not presumptuous in believing that we
are competent to judge about the state of things in our own country.
Now, as I have already indicated, out of the seventy-five Archbishops
and Bishops of the United States, there are about five who desire the
condemnation of the Knights of Labor, such as they are in our own
country; so that our Hierarchy are almost unanimous in protesting
against such a condemnation. Such a fact ought to have great weight in
deciding the question. If there are difficulties in the case, it seems
to me that the prudence and experience of our Bishops and the wise rules
of the Third Plenary Council ought to suffice for their solution.
Finally, to sum up all, it seems to me
that the Holy See could not decide to condemn an association under the
following circumstances:
1. When the condemnation does not seem
to be justified either by the letter or the spirit of its constitution,
its laws and the declaration of its chiefs.
2. When the condemnation does not seem
necessary, in view of the transient form of the organization and the
social condition of the United States.
3. When it does not seem to be prudent,
because of the reality of the grievances complained of by the working
classes, and their acknowledgment by the American people.
4. When it would be dangerous for the reputation of the Church in our democratic country, and might even lead to persecution.
5. When it would probably be inefficacious, owing to the general conviction that it would be unjust.
6. When it would be destructive instead
of beneficial in its effects, impelling the children of the Church to
disobey their Mother, and even to enter condemned societies, which they
have thus far shunned.
7. When it would turn into suspicion and hostility the singular devotedness of our Catholic people towards the Holy See.
8. When it would be regarded as a cruel
blow to the authority of Bishops in the United States, who, it is
well-known, protest against such a condemnation.
Now, I hope that the considerations
here presented have sufficiently shown that such would be the effect of
condemnation of the Knights of Labor in the United States.
Therefore, I leave the decision of the
case, with fullest confidence, to the wisdom and prudence of your
Eminence and the Holy See.
J. Card. Gibbons,
Archbishop of Baltimore.
Rome, February 20, 1887.
It was not until the law of 25 May 1864, under Napoléon III that workers regained the right to associate and to strike.
Père Henri-Dominique Lacordaire OP, who restored the Dominican order in France in 1850 and who was the most celebrated preacher of his day was an early champion of the rights of labour. An admirer of Lord Shaftsbury’s Factories Acts in the UK, he famously remarked, “Between the weak and the strong, between the rich and the poor, between the master and the servant, it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free.”
Thanks for posting this article and letter. The late 19th Century (bleeding into the early 20th Century) was one of the most outstanding times in human history for technological growth, and the improvement of the lives of all people. But, it was not without some pain, especially felt among the workers who became little more than “wage slaves”.
Ultimately, work places were made safe and salaries rose. While there certainly was violence and blood, what is amazing is that the antagonism, and anarchy, that marked European labor movements did not take hold as deeply nor as long here in the US. This was due (IMHO) to the influence and true interest of Catholic Church leadership here, as compared to the European model.
The anarcho-syndicalism prevalent on the Continent was indeed largely absent in Britain and America. This is due less to the influence of the Church than to a tradition of effective representative government which militated against revolution.
Thanks very much for the information. This is one of the reasons I love TAC so much; unlike many other blogs, the correspondents here (excepting myself) have so much knowledge that the comboxes are actually a great continuation of the excellent posts.
Anarcho-syndicalism, in the tradition of Sorel and Proudhon, has deep roots in the Latin distrust of government, as such. Its main appeal was always in Italy, Spain and France south of the Loire, places in which the political class is held in deep and, often, well-merited contempt.
In Britain, trade unionism and the Labour party had strong roots in the Nonconformist tradition, especially Methodism in England & Wales and the Covenanter legacy in Scotland.