Abstract
In Poor Man’s Fortune, Jarod Roll examines white working-class conservatism in the American metal mining industry in the century between the Civil War and World War II. He explores why white, native-born metal miners in the Tri-State district of Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma deliberately and persistently opposed labor unions and social democratic politics between 1850 and 1950. Roll claims that miners were willing to fight radical labor unions and safety regulations due to their long-standing belief that the racial, gendered, and national privileges afforded to diligent American white men would make it possible for them to achieve prosperity under capitalism.
Roll organizes the book chronologically rather than thematically. Over seven chapters, he traces the historical trajectory of Tri-State miners’ conservatism instead of attributing distinct themes to each chapter. He tells the story of how these laborers started to develop prospects into small mining companies to become owner-operator miners. Their entrepreneurial ambitions “made the mining district famous as a poor man's camp, a place where men with little means could still make money on their own account” (47). Then, the author shows how their cumulative choices and durable aspirations for financial incentives led successive generations of miners to create deep-seated white working-class conservative traditions over time.
The book reveals that most Tri-State miners developed animosity toward the idea of class-based solidarity and rejected direct action organized by radical unions. Nevertheless, understanding why they resisted government-led health and safety reforms is no less important than explaining their strikebreaking against foreign union miners. Roll argues that “shovelers embraced a form of working-class masculinity that heralded physical aggression and dangerous action in pursuit of financial incentives” (138). This masculinity was so deeply ingrained that native-born American mine laborers were willing to take significant risks to prosper under capitalism even though they recognized the dangers of their job. As Roll explains, “Tri-State miners understood the risk of silicosis but resisted precautions, especially those pushed by government doctors and mining companies, that threatened the relationship between their self-conception as physically strong, unrestrained men and their earning power” (182).
Poor Man’s Fortune is a well-written book in which Roll provides his arguments clearly and eloquently through an exhaustive analysis of numerous primary sources such as federal records, local newspapers, oral histories, and union archives. One weakness is that he reminds the reader of the central argument repeatedly throughout the book without necessarily adding new levels of nuance. However, given the book's broad scope, covering a century, this kind of repetition might be helpful for the author and possibly many readers to avoid losing track of his main argument.
This book is intended for labor historians, political scientists, sociologists, labor specialists, and labor activists, also potentially attracting a wider audience interested in the subject. It covers the period between 1850 and 1950, but it is still relevant and essential for today's labor movement for two reasons. First, Poor Man’s Fortune shows the repercussions of white working-class conservatism that partly explain the ongoing, deeply entrenched inequalities in the United States. Second, it reveals that the case of mine laborers in the Tri-State district is a lesson for workers’ movements today by illustrating a particular segment of the working-class consciously and consistently looking for opportunities in the capitalist marketplace without unionization. Indeed, it is relatively less complicated to think about a strategy of renewing labor unions in the face of external threats like employer opposition, state repression, or economic uncertainty. Yet, the book reveals a more challenging task for labor movements by posing the question of mobilizing new groups of workers while dealing with the conservative elements within organized labor.