Part I  Introduction  Background Part II  The 1939 DFU Milk Strike  Struggles in Words and Photographs Part III  Struggles to Close the Heuvelton Sheffield Farms Plant  DFU's Struggle to Close Canton Milk Plants Part IV  Conclusion and Postscript  Acknowledgements  About the author  Suggested Reading

Strike meeting of DFU members in Watertown, N.Y. Source: Watertown Daily Times, August 10, 1939.

In July 1939, the Supreme Court reinstated the Market Order system, but this occurred just as a midsummer drought scorched upstate New York, increasing the anger of already irate dairy producers. In August, DFU locals across the state met to discuss the implications of the dealers' actions. Two hundred DFU members met in Canton, New York, on August 3 and voted to strike unless they received a blended or average price of $2.35 cwt. The same day, two hundred more DFU farmers cast a similar vote in LaFargeville, New York, where they were joined by a large number of LaFargeville businessmen who pledged to support a DFU strike. Thirty-five DFU members voted to strike in Lowville, New York, followed by 130 farmers at the nearby Tritown DFU local (Antwerp, Evans Mills, Philadelphia). On August 10, the call for a strike reached a crescendo when six hundred DFU farmers in Canton voted unanimously to strike. Later that day, one thousand Jefferson County DFU farmers cast a similar vote in the South Jr. High Auditorium in Watertown.[28] On August 12, DFU farmers from northern New York joined representatives of DFU locals from the Mohawk and Hudson River Valleys, and from northern Pennsylvania and western Vermont, at a special convention. There, representatives of the union's 14,962 members voted to begin picketing and diverting milk in three days.

DFU opponents were quick to attack the expanding strike movement. Charles Baldwin, executive secretary of the Milk Producers Bargaining Agency, raised charges similar to those made during the 1937 DFU strike. As the DFU strike began he declared that farm families were "guarding [their] homes tonight in fear of armed invaders."[29] He also stated that the DFU "is an out and out CIO Communist movement." New York State Health Commissioner John L. Rice reported the DFU strike "was insignificant after its first day." Henry Rathbun, vice-president of the Dairymen's League, declared that the DLCA was short only two percent of their normal deliveries; he attributed the shortages to "threats, intimidation and fear of CIO brutality."[30] The Watertown Times, however, estimated that the union had cut the New York City fluid milk supply by thirty percent after one day of picketing.[31]

By the strike's third day, the DFU had tightened its grip on the New York City milk supply with only scattered incidents of violence. The union's ability to quickly accomplish this goal was due to two important factors. First, discontent ran so deep among the "rank and file" in 1939 that many farmers who were not DFU members joined the strike either by refusing to deliver their product or by arranging for DFU pickets to dump their milk. By citing the possibility of violence, for example, many league and Sheffield co-op member-farmers could contribute to the DFU strike movement and yet offer at least the appearance of trying to fulfill their contractual obligations. Second, sympathetic public opinion in the strike region and DFU allies such organized labor proved important in completing the union boycott of upstate milk plants. Union leaders such as the United Mine Workers' John L. Lewis sent telegrams of support, while the Transport Workers Union dispatched an organizer to help Archie Wright.[32]

In the northern New York union stronghold of St. Lawrence County, DFU pickets quickly dried up most of the local plants that shipped milk to New York City—such as the Dairymen's League plant in Canton. Nevertheless, one important plant remained open: the Sheffield Farms plant in Heuvelton, New York, home of DFU Chairmen Archie Wright. The pictures that accompany this article were taken in Canton and Heuvelton during the DFU's historic struggle in 1939. Together they offer a compelling portrait of the desperation of the DFU's small farmer-members, as well as the depth of support for the DFU in local communities. One set of pictures was taken on the picket lines and streets surrounding the Sheffield Farms plant in Canton; the second set was taken in and around the nearby small town of Heuvelton, where after three days of unsuccessful picketing the DFU massed hundreds of its members and their supporters in one final effort to complete the union's blockade. The oral histories that accompany these pictures are the voices of actual participants. Some were DFU members and organizers; others were DFU opponents or members of the communities in which these strikes took place.

Three Farmers Recall the 1939 Strike and the Dairy Farmers Union.
Playing time: 3 minutes, 4 seconds.

14.4 Kb/sec.

28.8 Kb/sec.

In the first of the following two photographs, four DFU farmers wait patiently while on picket duty near Heuvelton. The second photograph shows the outcome of their encounter with a non-striking farmer who was trying to sneak a few cans of milk into the Sheffield Farms plant by car.
 

The DFU had greater success in closing the Sheffield Farms and Dairymen's League milk plants in Canton, primarily because Wright and the union were able to mobilize larger numbers of pickets for duty on Canton's wide, tree-lined streets.

In order to prevent angry non-strikers from simply crashing through their picket lines, DFU farmers often added an additional line of defense. These planks embedded with large nails were usually enough to stop even the most determined union opponent.
 

 
Another DFU tactic, which was borrowed from the CIO, was to organize "flying squadrons" of Union members who patrolled country roads in search of non-striking farmers attempting to deliver their milk. These road patrols usually consisted of a large stake-rack truck filled with DFU member-farmers.

Women played an essential role in the DFU effort, serving as union officers and, more importantly, as union pickets. The DFU Journal for 1939-1940 claimed that:

A milk strike places an additional burden on every farm family, not only in the actual carrying on of the strike, but in doing the redoubled farm chores. It was upon the women that the burden of extra chores fell heaviest. While the men were busy doing picket duty, women did extra work around the farm. They milked more cows, they cranked the [cream] separator, they churned thousands of pounds of butter, some of it in electric washing machines, and they took over the duties normally carried on by the men. In addition, women helped materially on the picket line. Many a man kept his milk home because a women pleaded with him. All in all, the strike brought a greater feeling of camaraderie among farmers than has existed in a long time.[33]
 

[35]

Go To:
Dairy Strike: Part I  Introduction  Background	Dairy Strike: Part III  Struggles to Close the Heuvelton Sheffield Farms Plant  DFU's Struggle to Close Canton Milk Plants
Dairy Strike: Part II  Return to top  The 1939 DFU Milk Strike  Struggles in Words and Photographs	Dairy Strike: Part IV  Conclusion  Postscript  Acknowledgements  About the Author  Suggested Reading

Notes for Part II:

27. United States v. Rock Royal Co-op., Inc. et al, Federal Supp. 26 (Dist. Court, N.D. New York 1939). [Return to text]

28. Watertown Daily Times, 10 August 1939, 3. [Return to text]

29. New York Times, 16 August 1939, 25; 17 August, 1939, 42. [Return to text]

30. New York Times, 15 August 1939, 1. [Return to text]

31. Watertown Daily Times, 15 August 1939, 18. [Return to text]

32. The Union Farmer, 25 September 1939, 1; Lowell K. Dyson, Red Harvest (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982), 172-3. [Return to text]

33. Dairy Farmers Union Journal 1939-1940, 3. [Return to text]

34. Ogdensburg Journal, 21 August 1939, 1. [Return to text]

35. Jefferson County Journal, 23 August 1939, 1. [Return to text]

~ End Part II~

To: Part III
The 1939 Dairy Farmers Union Milk Strike in Heuvelton and Canton, New York:
The Story in Words and Pictures Copyright © 1998 by the Journal for MultiMedia History.
Contents: JMMH, Volume 1 Number 1 ~ Fall 1998