AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



La Follette supporters were quick to accuse old-guard Republicans of 

 conniving to pack this gathering with henchmen, disguised as radicals, 

 to nominate the senator on an impossible platform and then follow 

 through with a series of red speeches. This is what they said had happened 

 at the Farmer-Labor convention in Chicago in 1920. Reactionaries had 

 packed it with cronies of theirs, arranged for wild-eyed speeches, and 

 then forced the adoption of a platform which they knew La Follette 

 would never accept. The Minnesota convention of June 17 was predicted 

 to become a repeat performance. 41 



Weeks before the June 17 meeting, stories were circulating to the effect 

 that La Follette, although anxious to get the support of the Minnesota 

 group, was "not out to receive the baptismal insignia of that assembly as 

 the initial step. . . ." Progressives, in growing numbers, seemed to advise 

 that their men had better avoid the St. Paul convention. Political suicide 

 was predicted for those who took part in it. Samuel Gompers, quoted as 

 describing it as a device of the Red "borers from within," urged organ- 

 ized labor to stay away from it. 



This convention, like that of other liberal and progressive groups, was 

 expected to go far in showing how wide the cleavages were within the 

 Farmer-Labor ranks and how hard it was going to be to reconcile the 

 political aspirations of the different groups. "Some labor sees red, some 

 pink, some clear white. Of the farmers precisely the same thing is 



true. . 



C. E. Ruthenberg, the secretary of the Workers' Party of America, an- 

 nounced that he would support La Follette if the Farmer-Labor conven- 

 tion in St. Paul nominated him. But at the same time he was going to 

 destroy the illusion that La Follette represented the interests of the rank- 

 and-file farmers and workers. He drew a distinction between the coming 

 St. Paul and Cleveland meetings. According to Ruthenberg, the Cleveland 

 meeting was dominated by dissatisfied wealthy farmers and small busi- 

 nessmen, while the St. Paul meeting was endorsed by the bulk of the 

 workers. 43 



Speculation about whether La Follette was going to take part in the 

 St. Paul convention finally ended with the publication of a letter written 



41. Labor (Washington, D. C.), March 29, 1924. 



42. Minneapolis Tribune, May 5, 1924. 



43. Milwaukee Journal, May 7, 1924. 



