Joe’s point about the policemen is something I tried to capture in my Coolidge article, but did it inadequately. This is the great tension of all such battles. The Boston police were right. They were underpaid. What one might call the “hard-ass-ness” of Curtis, what we call being like Scrooge, is what always makes conservatives look bad. Sometimes deservedly so.

Back in September, when I was blogging about the Boston police strike, I meant to post something about Dennis Lehane’s historical novel, The Given Day. The book tells the story of several characters living in Boston at the time of the strike, including a well-connected young policeman, Danny Coughlin.

As a work of historical fiction, The Given Day is really quite extraordinary. Lehane has a remarkable gift for period detail and dialog — no small thing, given the propensity to exaggerate Irish accents in almost every fictional treatment of the city. Lehane does a truly fine job of bringing early 20th century Boston to life.

The book also makes a passionate argument on behalf of the strikers. Generally speaking, Lehane portrays city and state officials as hapless, venal, uncaring, heartless, and incompetent. Coolidge makes a few brief cameos, never to much effect, but his role remains implicitly central as Lehane crafts his ringing indictment of police commissioner Edwin Upton Curtis.

In her review of Lehane’s book, Janet Maslin drew attention to its depiction of Curtis:

“The Given Day” creates a particularly chilling portrait of Boston’s police commissioner, Edwin Upton Curtis, as a dangerous has-been with no regard for the safety, dignity or vulnerability of his cops.

That’s a fair assessment of Lehane’s treatment of Curtis, and to my mind, a fair assessment of Curtis, too. The police strike was avoidable, as almost everyone involved (including Coolidge) was well aware. But rather than trying to defuse the situation, Curtis made it worse.

The Boston police had a long list of legitimate grievances, including scandalously low pay and poor working conditions (as Amity noted in her recent Forbes article). The patrolmen, loosely organized as the Boston Social Club, had been negotiating with city officials for years. In return, they got a series of excuses and half-met promises.

To be fair, city officials were struggling with chronically tight budgets and dysfunctional political institutions — not to mention the economic upheaval of World War I.  But the hard fact remains: Boston cops had been treated shabbily for years.

Many city and civic leaders were aware that something had to be done. Even as the prospect of a strike loomed large in the summer of 1919, hopes for a compromise ran high. But Curtis showed scant interest in finding common ground. Eager to assert his authority, he seemed intent on confrontation.

Once the police had crossed their Rubicon and begun the strike, different issues were in play. Coolidge had  was determined to establish the primacy of law, order, and political authority. But we can admire his stand and still lament the need for it. The Boston police strike was an avoidable tragedy. The blame for it must be shared by the strikers (who played fast and loose with the public’s right to safety) and city officials (who refused to address complaints that even they acknowledged to be legitimate).

Wrote the following piece on the strikes:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1102/opinions-amity-shlaes-current-events.html

….and beginning to research Coolidge….

Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor. Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.

On September 14, 1919, Coolidge sent a telegram to Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Artful and at times almost eloquent in its terse phraseology, it included a statement that would soon rocket Coolidge to national prominence. (See highlighted text below.)

A TELEGRAM
BOSTON, MASS., Sept. 14, 1919

MR. SAMUEL GOMPERS

President American Federation of Labor, New York City, N.Y.

Replying to your telegram, I have already refused to remove the Police Commissioner of Boston. I did not appoint him. He can assume no position which the courts would uphold except what the people have by the authority of their law vested in him. He speaks only with their voice. The right of the police of Boston to affiliate has always been questioned, never granted, is now prohibited. The suggestion of President Wilson to Washington does not apply to Boston. There the police have remained on duty. Here the Policemen’s Union left their duty, an action which President Wilson characterized as a crime against civilization. Your assertion that the Commissioner was wrong cannot justify the wrong of leaving the city unguarded. That furnished the opportunity, the criminal element furnished the action. There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time. [emphasis added] You ask that the public safety again be placed in the hands of these same policemen while they continue in disobedience to the laws of Massachusetts and in their refusal to obey the orders of the Police Department. Nineteen men have been tried and removed. Others having abandoned their duty, their places have, under the law, been declared vacant on the opinion of the Attorney-General. I can suggest no authority outside the courts to take further action. I wish to join and assist in taking a broad view of every situation. A grave responsibility rests on all of us. You can depend on me to support you in every legal action and sound policy. I am equally determined to defend the sovereignty of Massachusetts and to maintain the authority and jurisdiction over her public officers where it has been placed by the Constitution and law of her people.

CALVIN COOLIDGE
Governor of Massachusetts