The Politicization of Social Divisions in

Post-War Poland Piotr Borowiec

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-politicization-of-social-divisions-in-post-war-polan
d-piotr-borowiec/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Civil War in Central Europe, 1918-1921: the

Reconstruction of Poland Böhler

https://ebookmass.com/product/civil-war-in-central-
europe-1918-1921-the-reconstruction-of-poland-bohler/

Civil War in Central Europe, 1918-1921: The

Reconstruction of Poland Jochen Böhler

https://ebookmass.com/product/civil-war-in-central-
europe-1918-1921-the-reconstruction-of-poland-jochen-bohler/

Citizenship and Social Policy: From Post-War

Development to Permanent Crisis Nikos Kourachanis

https://ebookmass.com/product/citizenship-and-social-policy-from-
post-war-development-to-permanent-crisis-nikos-kourachanis/

Nationalism and the Politicization of History in the

Former Yugoslavia Gorana Ognjenovic

https://ebookmass.com/product/nationalism-and-the-politicization-
of-history-in-the-former-yugoslavia-gorana-ognjenovic/
Poland From Partitions to EU Accession: A Modern
Economic History, 1772–2004 1st ed. Edition Piotr Kory■

https://ebookmass.com/product/poland-from-partitions-to-eu-
accession-a-modern-economic-history-1772-2004-1st-ed-edition-
piotr-korys/

The Making of Barbara Pym: Oxford, the War Years, and

Post-war Austerity Emily Stockard

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-making-of-barbara-pym-oxford-
the-war-years-and-post-war-austerity-emily-stockard/

Jews in the Garden: A Holocaust Survivor, the Fate of

His Family, and the Secret History of Poland in World
War II Judy Rakowsky

https://ebookmass.com/product/jews-in-the-garden-a-holocaust-
survivor-the-fate-of-his-family-and-the-secret-history-of-poland-
in-world-war-ii-judy-rakowsky-2/

Jews in the Garden: A Holocaust Survivor, the Fate of

His Family, and the Secret History of Poland in World
War II Judy Rakowsky

https://ebookmass.com/product/jews-in-the-garden-a-holocaust-
survivor-the-fate-of-his-family-and-the-secret-history-of-poland-
in-world-war-ii-judy-rakowsky/

Feminist Lives: Women, Feelings, and the Self in Post-

War Britain Abrams

https://ebookmass.com/product/feminist-lives-women-feelings-and-
the-self-in-post-war-britain-abrams/
The Politicization
of Social Divisions
in Post-War Poland
Piotr Borowiec
The Politicization of Social Divisions in Post-War
Poland
 Piotr Borowiec

The Politicization
of Social Divisions
in Post-War Poland
Piotr Borowiec
Institute of Political Science
and International Relations
Jagiellonian University
Kraków, Poland

ISBN 978-3-031-26529-7 ISBN 978-3-031-26530-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26530-3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Marina Lohrbach_shutterstock.com

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my daughter Alicja
 Acknowledgements

Many people contributed to my writing of this book, including my

colleagues from the Institute of Political Science and International Rela-
tions at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. I would like to thank all of
them. In particular, I would like to extend my gratitude to Piotr Obacz,
Ph.D., for the inspiration provided by his monograph entitled Podział
“Polska solidarna—Polska liberalna” w świetle wybranych koncepcji plural-
izmu politycznego. (2018). It helped me consider many issues related
to divisions. Even if I provide different answers to some of the ques-
tions he asked, they would not have been formulated had it not been
for his paper. I would also like to thank the students of the Political
Studies Faculty of the Jagiellonian University, to whom I presented an
approach to social divisions and the theory of practices of repartition
during political sociology lectures. I am profoundly thankful to them for
their critique, patience and inquisitiveness.

Kraków, Poland Piotr Borowiec

December 2022

vii
 Contents

1 Introduction 1
2 The First Structural Experiment: Communist-Era
Homogenisation 11
3 Consequences of the Experiment: The Division
Between Society and the nomenklatura 57
4 The Second Experiment: The Differentiation
of the Social Structure 105
5 Consequences of the Second Experiment: The
“Winners”–“Losers” Division 151
6 The Formation of Social Divisions and the Theory
of Practices of Repartition 197
7 Conclusion 245

Index 253

ix
 Abbreviations

CBOS Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej —Centre for Public Opinion

Research
GUS Główny Urzad˛ Statystyczny—Central Statistical Office
KPN Konfederacja Polski Niepodległej —The Confederation of Independent
Poland
PGR Państwowe Gospodarstwo Rolne—State Agricultural Farm
PKWN Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego—Polish Committee of
National Liberation
PPR Polska Partia Robotnicza—Polish Workers’ Party
PPS Polska Partia Socjalistyczna—Polish Socialist Party
PRL Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa—Polish People’s Republic
PZPR Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza—Polish United Workers’ Party
RP Rzeczpospolita Polska—The Republic of Poland
SLD Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej —The Democratic Left Alliance
UB Urzad˛ Bezpieczeństwa—Security Office
UE Unia Europejska—European Union
ZMP Zwiazek
˛ Młodzieży Polskiej —Union of Polish Youth

xi
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Two observations formed the basis of my interest in the formation and

politicization of social divisions in Poland. Both are seemingly different
and perhaps exceptionally trivial but, in practice, they are related to each
other, inspire me and bring about scientific research.
The first consisted in me realising my growing irritation caused by
another passionate statement of a certain public opinion leader in the
media, claiming that Polish society was deeply “divided in half” and that
this caused negative consequences suffered, in particular, by the author
of these words and which were unbearable for him. He considered those
divisions and splits to be a burden weighing him down and leading to
his permanent discomfort of living. His additional words did not lead
to anything sensible. Often, he was not even able to define the sides of
this division, its genesis or the causes behind the formation of related
distances, and yet he noticed it and made it socially significant, seem-
ingly considering himself a messenger of some sort. In the later part of
his argumentation, he warned against further divisions and condemned
those causing divisions and fuelling the “Polish-Polish war”. As expected,
he only counted politicians who did not share his worldview among the
dividers. It was them who he considered the source of those divisions. He
had no second thoughts about expressing his negative opinion of them.
Elated, he was convinced that he was the truth-bearer, failing to notice
that suddenly he joined the dividers (in reference to the notion above).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2023
P. Borowiec, The Politicization of Social Divisions in Post-War Poland,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26530-3_1
2 P. BOROWIEC

He divided politicians into those who reportedly cause divisions due to

employing dividing as a strategy and those who reportedly abstain from
doing it (at least in his opinion). In other words, into those worthy and
unworthy of trust, not equal to himself. Some he considered superior,
others inferior. The whole of his statement showed disdain for politics, a
wish for the need for unity and universal harmony, but built solely based
on his own vision of order and proper living—which is an expectation
that shocks with its totality and is partially a legacy of communism and its
doctrine of “moral and political unity” (Świda-Ziemba, 1998, p. 291).
The second observation is related to a statement by Adam Michnik—
a person symbolic of the Polish fight for freedom—from early 2015. It
was a statement anchored in politics and practically opened that [politi-
cally important] year when presidential and parliamentary elections were
held. Michnik made a division “into an authoritarian Poland wanting
to build a police state, and a democratic Poland” (Adam, 2015). The
above statement is clearly significant because both Michnik and the
circles centred around him were reluctant to employ such polarisations.
It cannot be interpreted only as a mechanical attempt at supporting
one of the parties to a political dispute with his own authority and,
therefore, as an instrumental and demagogic strategy. It would consti-
tute a simplification unfair to the source of this concept, very likely
untrue. Therefore, there must be something more in those dichoto-
mous, discursive juxtapositions—hereinafter referred to as practices of
repartition.
These observations and attempts at answering the question of what
the actual reasons for the appearance of social divisions and application of
repartitions—those that lie deeper than the ones suggested by common
sense, political discourse conditions and available scientific knowledge on
divisions, often referred to as the “classic knowledge on the matter”—
are constituted as the basis for the decision to begin research on the
phenomena mentioned above.
The main substantive assumption of this paper is a reflection on the
role of the ideas of justice and equality in Polish social order. The
introduction of the first version of these ideals in 1945, following the
communist distribution ideology, resulted in a permanent revolution of
the social structure and the destruction of existing divisions, differences
and inequalities. The consequences of those processes are still being
felt today. It is necessary to remember that the egalitarian perspec-
tive situates inequalities mainly in the structure, within perspectives of
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

superiority−inferiority (Domański, 2002, p. 9). The introduction of their

second version, based on meritocracy and efficiency, led to the forma-
tion of new inequalities, once again transforming the social structure
and making it more difficult to read. Therefore, in my paper, I focus
on the economic, ethnic and religious categories of social structuralisa-
tion, various approaches to the structure and also subjective awareness
aspects of the lives of individuals (i.e., the meanings assigned to inequal-
ities). It is in these phenomena that is see the individual, psychological
sources of division. I believe that their premises lie mainly in endoge-
nous factors, inequalities and the attitudes of individuals towards them.
I make central the categories that constitute inequalities and eventually
lead to divisions. It is them that create the distances between individ-
uals; therefore, they are “signposts”, determinants for describing the
structure of and changes in inequalities, as well as for the formation of
divisions. The analysis assumes recognising social order as a “system”
of active individuals socially, economically and politically anchored and
being in a state of constant integration and transformation. Additionally,
it may be recognised as an order that is a collection of rules and insti-
tutions that determine the framework of social existence (Marody, 1991,
p. 7) and that are all structured and co-dependent—and, therefore, also
the relations between them. Acting in this manner allows showing the
ties between transforming structures that result from their effect and,
therefore, the formation of divisions and politicization thereof.
In the analysis presented, social divisions and practices of repartition
constitute the main object of interest and bind all of the considera-
tions undertaken. Repartitions are important political matters—not only
in democracy—that form a basis for rooting and transforming politics.
That is why I attempt to present their model and capture their dynamics.
Repartitions are commonly considered mobilisation strategies that help
provide political support, while in reality, they are forms of questioning
the stability of the order by calling for a rejection of its dominant hier-
archies. They are also instrumental tools that groups use to anchor
themselves in politics and participate in them, or methods intended to
ensure political survival. They constitute a reflection of many conditions
present within a given society. This is why I consider them forms of diag-
nosis of social statuses, the depth of inequalities and the changes expected.
The foundation of my consideration is the functionalist assumption that
divisions and practices of repartition are intrasystemic consequences that
usually reflect the condition of structures, the influence of dominating
4 P. BOROWIEC

ideologies and the accepted vision of social justice. To put it as simply as

possible, practices of repartition are attempts at revealing unjust relations
and privileges and political calls for abolishing them. In this manner, my
paper reaches to the very basis of structures (i.e., to the formation of social
relations and appearance of distances and connects them to political activ-
ities and practices of repartition employed). I claim that the experiences
of unjust differences created the divisions in Poland and, therefore, repar-
titioning practices (which includes politics). In the repartitioning theory
proposed, the objective is to explain one of the forms of politicization
of social divisions. The majority of inequalities and divisions arising are
subject to politicization that varies in form and intensity. However, not
all of them are politicized by means of repartitions.
In this paper, I demonstrate that the divisions are conditioned upon the
structure condition, inequalities, registers of wrongs and factors present
at an individual level, as well as subtle meanings that individuals assign
to them. At the same time, the analysis showed that repartitions are
employed in two cases: when there are significant and noticeable inequali-
ties between groups and when differences disappear, and homogenisation
progresses. A “homogeneous” society increases the likelihood of the
application of repartitions, usually through the “underlining” of hidden
partitions aimed at destroying that homogeneity. This applies to the
democratic order in particular. Political actors reach for such measures
when the social structure is characterised by profound differences, when
it is nearly homogeneous and, also, when a specific lifestyle model is
imposed on minorities. The existence of a homogeneous society does not
exclude taking advantage of these practices. On the contrary, it basically
“invites” them to be included in the discourse. That is why repartitions
are also “instruments” used for controlling social space and “healing”
relations. They lead to a controlled change while, at the same time, not
being one, and that is one of the major findings of this paper.
In the analysis, I introduce notions that constitute theoretical assump-
tions for the subject matter discussed, make it more understandable and
enable preparing the whole concept of divisions and practices. In this
paper, society is a social space that keeps becoming, that is, a network
of social relations. I consider the notions of society—relations identical,
and they appear interchangeably in this paper (Domański, 2004, p. 11;
Sztompka, 1989; Wasilewski, 2006, p. 47). I differentiate between the
occurrence of objective inequalities and the subjective reception of objec-
tive condition of structures, as well as between the historically formed
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

social divisions and the practices of repartition recreating them. These

practices are discursive creations that depend on the condition of the
surroundings. They hold control and sustain or undermine existing privi-
leges, which makes them types of well-developed change implementation
projects.
In this paper, I omit the issue of the “translation” of divisions into the
party system and their impact on competition between parties—this is
due to the fact that, at present, there is still no evidence that the divisions
(also as presented in this paper) determine the form of the party system. It
turns out that “the political entrepreneurs organise only some of the social
divisions into political ‘sides’ and parties, expressed in programs in activi-
ties, while others remain dormant” (Grabowska, 2004, p. 257). Another
reason is that it is a separate research question that goes beyond the issues
presented in this paper. I also do not involve myself in seeking the lines
of political division and do not answer the question of how individual
divisions impacted the role, successes or failures of individual parties. I
am searching for facts in the discourse that explain the mechanisms of
the formation of divisions and creation of practices. I am also looking
for confirmation of theoretical conclusions and, therefore, anchoring my
deliberations in post-1945 Polish politics. This work provides an empirical
basis for the repartition theory. However, as it lacks complete verifica-
tion, I am presenting it in the form of a dynamic interpretation scheme
(Karwat, 2011, pp. 78–79).
The research question of this paper required returning to the processes
of Communist-era homogenisation, when totalitarian communist author-
ities generated the “us”–“them” division, striving to build an “equal”
society. I take these processes into account and return to them because
this paper describes the continuity of change in Poland, taking place
despite attempts at applying discontinuous development that were made
during different periods. I remind them as the struggle against social divi-
sions and the formation of new ones had even started in Poland before
the end of World War II. They have been continued for decades up to
the present day. One of the features of changes experienced by society
was the conviction that striving to abolish inequalities would lead to the
formation of relations based on justice. This conviction seems persistent,
but its strength was changing over time.
Thanks to returning to the post-war period, the compilation of sources
employed was extensive. All of them, including compilations of political
and historical facts and the inductive method of theory building, formed
6 P. BOROWIEC

the source and methodological base for the research. It consists of scien-
tific literature regarding the social structure and transformation of Polish
society during the years 1945–2022. This literature is very abundant,
although some of it has ideological influences that refer to multiple theo-
retical and empirical approaches, including Marxism. The literature on
the subject, irrespective of its ideological influences, allows the forma-
tion of the fundamental inequalities and division to be recreated—both
after World War II and in later decades. It allows noticing “revolutionary
interventions” in the structure, aiming at liquidating one division and
creating others. This does not mean, however, that only the political
interventions generated social distances. I took advantage of the knowl-
edge of structuralisation and social classes—as well as of both Marx’s and
Weber’s approach—according to the historical period in which they were
employed to analyse the social structure. When discussing social structure,
I employ notions from a given historical period as they constitute a part
of scientific temporal awareness. I recognise their impact on politics and
the repartitions employed.
This paper is based on the empirical and theoretical achievements of
scholars dealing with the structure and condition of Polish society. It
is also based on works of authors from outside of Poland that touch
upon socio-political divisions, including the reflections of Seymour M.
Lipset and Stein Rokkan (1967), reflections of Stein Rokkan (1970),
concepts of Scott C. Flanagan (1980), Ronald Inglehart (1984), Stefano
Bartolini and Peter Mair (1990), Amory Gethin et al. (2021) and those
of Oddbjørn Knutsen and Elinor Scarbrough (1995). Some special inspi-
ration was provided by the works of Herbert Kitschelt (1989, 1992)
and the theoretical solutions of Ryszard Herbut (1997, 1999), Radosław
Markowski (2000), Radosław Markowski and Ben Stanley (2016),
Mirosława Grabowska (2004, 2021), Agnieszka Figiel (2009), Piotr
Obacz (2018, 2021), Tomasz Zarycki (2000, 2007) and other scholars
(Bejma, 2013; Borowiec, 2021; Cześnik & Kotnarowski, 2011; Górka,
2009; Klepka, 2013; Kwiatkowska, 2010; Letki, 2013; Łukowski &
Sadowski, 2013). All the works listed constituted the basis for research,
but I do not refer to them further on.
The analysis was built around the chronological line of events and a
comparison of temporally distant events. It focuses on a process approach
to recognising events taking place and striving for generalisation. What
the whole of this paper and its considerations have in common is the two
great social experiments—the first one starting in the 1940s, the second
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

one in the 1990s. In both cases, the intention was to “change the social
life in line with a more or less specified vision of a society” (Blok, 1994,
p. 17), with greater or lesser social acceptance—both instrumentally and
politically—to destroy the social division or recreate them in line with
ideological templates and selected concepts of justice.

References
Adam Michnik: Komorowski przegra wybory tylko, jeśli pijany przejedzie na
pasach zakonnice w ci˛aży. (2015, January 5). http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/
kat,1342,title,Adam-Michnik-Komorowski-przegra-wybory-tylko-jesli-pijany-
przejedzie-na-pasach-zakonnice-w-ciazy,wid,17154951,wiadomosc.html?tic
aid=1141d0. Accessed 6 January 2015.
Bartolini, S., & Mair, P. (1990). Identity, Competition and Electoral Availability:
The Stabilisation of European Electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge University
Press.
Bejma, A. (2013). Od afery Rywina do katastrofy smoleńskiej – nowe
(utrwalone) podziały społeczno-polityczne w Polsce. Studia Politologiczne, 29,
112–132.
Blok, Z. (1994). Transformacja systemowa jako proces i jako przedmiot badań.
In K. Zamiara (Ed.), Społeczna transformacja w refleksji humanistycznej.
Wydawnictwo Fundacji Humaniora.
Borowiec, P. (2021). Podziały społeczne i ich upolitycznienie jako przykłady
toksycznych struktur władzy? Wrocławskie Studia Politologiczne, 30, 75–94.
Cześnik, M., & Kotnarowski, M. (2011). Nowy wymiar politycznego współza-
wodnictwa: Polska solidarna versus Polska liberalna. Studia Polityczne, 27 ,
129–158.
Domański, H. (2002). O ograniczeniach badań nad struktura˛ społeczna. ˛
Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.
Domański, H. (2004). Struktura społeczna. Wydawnictwo Naukowe “Scholar”.
Figiel, A. (2009). J˛ezyki IV RP. Podziały społeczno-polityczne w dyskursie polityki.
Wydawnictwo Wydziału Nauk Społecznych UAM.
Flanagan, C. S. (1980). Value Cleavages, Economic Cleavages and the Japanese
Voter. American Journal of Political Science, 24(2), 177–206.
Gethin, A., Martínez-Toledano, C., & Piketty, T. (Eds.). (2021). Political Cleav-
ages and Social Inequalities. A Study of Fifty Democracies, 1948–2020. Harvard
University Press.
Górka, M. (2009). Kształtowanie si˛e politycznych biegunów w polskim systemie
partyjnym w latach 2005–2007. Politeja, 12, 57–74.
Grabowska, M. (2004). Podział postkomunistyczny. Społeczne podstawy polityki po
1989 roku. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
8 P. BOROWIEC

Grabowska, M. (2021). The Post-communist Cleavage. Social Bases of Politics in

Poland After 1989. Peter Lang.
Herbut, R. (1997). Podziały socjopolityczne w Europie Zachodniej. Charakter i
struktura. In A. Antoszewski & R. Herbut (Eds.), Demokracje zachodnioeu-
ropejskie. Analiza porównawcza. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
Herbut, R. (1999). Podziały socjopolityczne. Studia z Teorii Polityki, I , 105–
116.
Inglehart, R. (1984). The Changing Structure of Political Cleavages in Western
Society. In J. R. Dalton, C. S. Flanagan, & A. P. Beck (Eds.), Electroral
Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment.
Princeton University Press.
Karwat, M. (2011). Rodzaje teorii w nauce o polityce. In Z. Blok (Ed.), Czym
jest teoria w politologii? Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa.
Kitschelt, H. (1989). The Logics of Party Formation. Ecological Politics in Belgium
and West Germany. Cornell Univeristy Press.
Kitschelt, H. (1992, March). The Formation of Party Systems in East Central
Europe. Politics and Society, 20/1, 7–50.
Klepka, R. (2013). Podziały elit politycznych jako kryterium periodyzacji okresu
III RP. In J. Sielski, J. Mizgalski, & J. Hajduk (Eds.), Polska mi˛edzy
przeszłościa˛ a przyszłościa.
˛ Wydawnictwo Akademii im. Jana Długosza.
Knutsen, O., & Scarbrough, E. (1995). Cleavage Politics. In J. W. van Deth &
E. Scarbrough (Eds.), The Impact of Values. Oxfod University Press.
Kwiatkowska, K. (2010). Polska solidarna – Polska liberalna. Przykład sztucznego
podziału rzeczywistości w działaniach propagandowych. Acta Humana, 1,
113–124.
Letki, N. (2013). Social Divisions Explain Political Choices? The Case of Poland.
In G. Evans & D. N. de Graaf (Eds.), Political Choice Matters: Explaining
the Strength of Class and Religious Cleavages in Cross-National Perspective.
Oxford University Press.
Lipset, M. S., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage Structures. Party Systems, and
Volter Alignments: An Introducion. In S. M. Lipset & S. Rokkan (Eds.), Party
Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. The Free Press.
Łukowski, W., & Sadowski, I. (2013). Podział społeczno-polityczny w Polsce.
Kilka Uwag Teoretycznych. Studia Politologiczne, 29, 11–36.
Markowski, R. (2000). Rozłamy socjopolityczne w zamyśle klasyków, o tym, jak
ich rozumiano, poprawiano i testowano. Studia Polityczne, 10, 7–44.
Markowski, R., & Stanley, B. (2016). Rozłamy socjopolityczne w Polsce: Iluzja
czy rzeczywistość? Studia Socjologiczne, 4, 17–40.
Marody, M. (1991). Działania jednostek a system społeczny. In M. Marody (Ed.),
Co nam zostało z tych lat… Społeczeństwo polskie u progu zmiany systemowej.
Aneks.
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

Obacz, P. (2018). Podział „Polska solidarna - Polska liberalna” w świetle

wybranych koncepcji pluralizmu politycznego. Wydawnictwo Libron.
Obacz, P. (2021). Podział społeczno-polityczny w Polsce i jego przejawy w parla-
mentarnej kampanii wyborczej 2019 roku. In P. Borowiec & A. Tyszkiewicz
(Eds.), Kampania parlamentarna 2019 roku. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Jagiellońskiego.
Rokkan, S. (1970). Citizens, Elections, Parties. Approaches to the Comparative
Study of the Processes of Development. Universitetsforlaget.
Świda-Ziemba, H. (1998). Człowiek wewn˛etrznie zniewolony. Problemy psychosocjo-
logiczne minionej formacji. Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Sztompka, P. (1989). Poj˛ecie struktury społecznej, próba uogólnienia. Studia
Socjologiczne, 3, 51–65.
Wasilewski, J. (2006). Formowanie si˛e nowej struktury społecznej. In
J. Wasilewski (Ed.), Współczesne społeczeństwo polskie. Dynamika zmian.
Wydawnictwo Naukowe “Scholar”.
Zarycki, T. (2000). Politics in the Periphery: Political Cleavages in Poland Inter-
preted in Their Historical and International Context. Europe-Asia Studies,
52(5), 851–873.
Zarycki, T. (2007). W poszukiwaniu peryferii. Teoria podziałów politycznych
Lipseta - Rokkana w kontekście polskim. In M. Dajnowicz (Ed.), Oblicze
polityczne regionów Polski. Wydawnictwo WSFiZ.
 CHAPTER 2

The First Structural Experiment:

Communist-Era Homogenisation

Ideological and Political Reasons

for Interfering with the Structure,
and the Patterns of That Interference
Had there been a necessity to describe the structure of the Polish society
directly after the end of World War II using a single word, the most
fitting one would have been “broken”. Its precise image was unobtain-
able at that time given the lack of complete knowledge of the extent of
wartime losses and destruction. Besides, it was simply not necessary then
as other objectives—the recreation of social life, rebuilding of the country
and overcoming poverty and supply shortages—were far more important
(Jarosz, 2002). However, if anyone had accepted such a task, they would
have failed due to a lack of certain data. The five years of war brought
the society [at that time] a previously unknown degree of suffering and
population losses, as well as a biological (Roszkowski, 2010) and financial
disaster. War was a traumatic experience, and the social fabric was in a
critical biological condition (Kersten, 2018). For every thousand Polish
citizens as of 1939, 220 people died—murdered by Soviet and German
occupiers or due to other causes.
What was the society that had been destroyed in a structure like, then?
Clearly, it was rife with social divisions and enclosed within numerous
hierarchies and inequalities (Zagórski, 1978, pp. 37–54). It experienced
noticeable distances, generated conflicts and organised strikes and social

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 11

Switzerland AG 2023
P. Borowiec, The Politicization of Social Divisions in Post-War Poland,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26530-3_2
12 P. BOROWIEC

events. The war destroyed an order that was characterised by wrongs

and social injustice, one in which unjust relations were accepted, justi-
fied and effectively sustained. It was a world where ethnic and religious
inequalities were present next to economic distances. However, demands
for creating just relations also appeared together with calls for rejecting
social pathologies.
The country, reborn in 1918, was taking intensive actions to intro-
duce social and economic changes. It initiated and conducted changes
towards industrialisation and urbanisation, performing limited but indis-
pensable social destructuralisation. The number of industrial workers
employed was growing systematically in the newly developed industrial
centres. However, the social structure was dominated by farmers and
farmworkers employed in large manors. Agriculture was the core of the
contemporary economic system (Wesołowski et al., 2017, p. 41). In
1939, 75% of the Polish population lived in the countryside, with farmers
and farmworkers constituting 55% of the 35 million citizens of Poland.
Industrial workers—who later became the shapers of history—consti-
tuted 27.5% of the population, bourgeoisie—11%, intelligentsia—over
5%, larger entrepreneurs—1%, and landed classes—about 0.4% (Dziurok
et al., 2014, pp. 43–52). The above-mentioned groups were internally
diverse, mainly in economic terms. Social disproportions were running
deep—an example of which may be the distance between the majority
of groups and the entrepreneurs and landed classes or the economic and
cultural rift between the farmers and farmworkers and the intelligentsia.
There were also certain similarities between them—an example of which
can be the similar living standard of farmers, farmworkers and industrial
workers (Turski et al., 1978, p. 81). The society of that time had extreme
faces—on the one hand, small privileged groups; on the other, numerous
and large handicapped groups.
When it comes to nationality, the situation resembled a multicultural
mosaic that is hard to create because of the ambiguous ethnic affiliation
of some of the inhabitants. In some of the people living in the territory
of a country that was being patched together after World War I, national
awareness was barely forming. Over 68% of the population declared Polish
identity. The subsequent most numerous groups were: Ukrainians—over
15%, Jews—8.5%, Belarusians—over 3% and Germans—over 2%. The
remaining ones were: Russians, Lithuanians, Czechs, Romani, a few
Slovaks and Karaites and certain ethnic groups linguistically similar to
Ukrainians (Boykos, Lemkos, Hutsuls), as well as Polonised Armenians
 2 THE FIRST STRUCTURAL EXPERIMENT: COMMUNIST-ERA … 13

and Tatars. Social differentiation was the highest among Poles. It is

estimated that they constituted: 60% of all farmers and farmworkers, 75–
80% of industrial workers, about 80% of the intelligentsia, about 40%
of the bourgeoisie and 50% of entrepreneurs. Polish nationality was also
dominant among landed classes.
The majority of Poles were Catholic, and only a small part was Protes-
tant. Ukrainians, who usually worked in agriculture, were mostly Greek
Catholic. A similar religious structure was dominant among Belarusians,
who were either Eastern Orthodox or Catholic. The Belarusian popu-
lation was characterised by the highest percentage of the illiterate. The
majority of Jews, who constituted 21% of the urban population, were
followers of Judaism. They spoke Yiddish and Polish, engaged in various
professions and had a significant share of entrepreneurs, lawyers and
doctors. As much as 55% of doctors in Poland were Jewish (Dziurok et al.,
2014, pp. 43–52).
What remained of that society after the war and the forced resettle-
ments or migrations resulting from the international political arrange-
ments? (Kersten, 2018, p. 201). The consequences of these processes can
be noticed when discussing the social structure, but at the same time can
only be presented in approximation.
Since some Polish citizens remained outside the new borders at the
Eastern Borderlands, all the data is approximate. In 1946, the population
of the country was 23.9 million people, which means that it decreased by
over 30%. Nowadays, the population losses of the Second Polish Republic
are estimated to be about 2.8 million casualties of Polish nationality and
2.7–2.9 million of Jewish nationality, bringing the total losses of the
Polish state to about 5.5–5.7 million people (Roszkowski, 2010, pp. 84–
85). Other nationalities living in the pre-war territory of Poland also
suffered losses. In total, national minorities constituted about 2% of the
population after the war. Thus, the war and the post-war resettlements
formed a nearly uniform society in terms of ethnicity (Eberhardt, 2000,
p. 79).
Among all the groups that composed the pre-war structure, the intel-
ligentsia suffered the greatest losses, which stemmed from the landed
classes and bourgeoisie. Similarly to the case of the Jewish population, it
is also possible to talk of planned extermination with regard to the intelli-
gentsia. The losses among this last group exceeded the average, reaching
up to 58% among lawyers, 38% among doctors and 28% of professors
and higher education facility employees (Palska, 1994, p. 39). Population
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
as moral and as religious as they choose to be, in the mining
countries, and as happy as human beings can be. Much they will
miss that they have been used to, and much they will receive that
none offered them before.
Money is commonly plentiful; if prices are high, remuneration for
work is liberal, and, in the end, care and industry will achieve
success and procure competence. We have travelled far and seen
much of the world, and the result of our experience is a love for our
mountain home, that time and change of scene can never efface.
 CHAPTER III.
SETTLEMENT OF MONTANA.

“I hear the tread of pioneers,

Of nations yet to be;
The first low wash of waves, where soon
Shall roll a human sea.”—Whittier.
Early in the Spring of 1862, the rumor of new and rich discoveries
on Salmon River, flew through Salt Lake City, Colorado, and other
places in the Territories. A great stampede was the consequence.
Faith and hope were in the ascendant among the motley crew that
wended their toilsome way by Fort Hall and Snake river, to the new
Eldorado. As the trains approached the goal of their desires, they
were informed that they could not get through with wagons, and
shortly after came the discouraging tidings that the new mines were
overrun by a crowd of gold-hunters from California, Oregon, and
other western countries; they were also told, that finding it impossible
to obtain either claims or labor, large bands of prospectors were
already spreading over the adjacent territory; and finally, that some
new diggings had been discovered at Deer Lodge.
The stream of emigration diverged from the halting place, where
this last welcome intelligence reached them. Some, turning towards
Deer Lodge, crossed the mountains, between Fort Lemhi and Horse
Prairie Creek, and, taking a cut-off to the left, endeavored to strike
the old trail from Salt Lake to Bitter Root and Deer Lodge Valleys.
These energetic miners crossed the Grasshopper Creek, below the
Canon, and finding good prospects there, some of the party
remained, with a view of practically testing their value. Others went
on to Deer Lodge; but finding that the diggings were neither so rich
nor so extensive as they had supposed, they returned to
Grasshopper Creek—afterwards known as the Beaver Head
Diggings—so named from the Beaver Head River, into which the
creek empties. The river derives its appellation from a rock, which
exactly resembles, in its outline, the head of a Beaver.
From this camp—the rendezvous of the emigration—started, from
time to time, the bands of explorers who first discovered and worked
the gulches east of the Rocky Mountains, in the world renowned
country now the Territory of Montana. Other emigrants, coming by
Deer Lodge, struck the Beaver Head diggings; then the first party
from Minnesota arrived; after them, came a large part of the Fisk
company who had travelled under Government escort, from the
same State, and a considerable number drove through from Salt
Lake City and Bitter Root, in the early part of the winter, which was
very open.
Among the later arrivals were some desperadoes and outlaws,
from the mines west of the mountains. In this gang were Henry
Plummer, afterwards the sheriff, Charley Reeves, Moore and
Skinner. These worthies had no sooner got the “lay of the country,”
than they commenced operations. Here it may be remarked, that if
the professed servants of God would only work for their master with
the same energy and persistent devotion, as the servants of the
Devil use for their employer, there would be no need of a Heaven
above, for the earth itself would be a Paradise.
 CHAPTER IV.
THE ROAD AGENTS.

“Thieves for their robbery have authority

When judges steal themselves.”—Shakespeare
It may easily be imagined that life in Bannack, in the early days of
the settlement, was anything but pleasant. The ruffians, whose
advent we have noticed, served as a nucleus, around which the
disloyal, the desperate, and the dishonest gathered, and quickly
organizing themselves into a band, with captain, lieutenants,
secretary, road agents, and outsiders, became the terror of the
country. The stampede to the Alder Gulch, which occurred early in
June, 1863, and the discovery of the rich placer diggings there,
attracted many more of the dangerous classes, who, scenting the
prey from afar, flew like vultures to the battle field.
Between Bannack and Virginia, a correspondence was constantly
kept up, and the roads throughout the Territory were under the
surveillance of the “outsiders” before mentioned. To such a system
were these things brought, that horses, men and coaches were
marked in some understood manner, to designate them as fit objects
for plunder, and thus the liers in wait had an opportunity of
communicating the intelligence to the members of the gang, in time
to prevent the escape of the victims.
The usual arms of a road agent were a pair of revolvers, a double-
barrelled shot-gun, of large bore, with the barrels cut down short,
and to this they invariably added a knife or dagger. Thus armed and
mounted on fleet, well trained horses, and being disguised with
blankets and masks, the robbers awaited their prey in ambush.
When near enough, they sprang out on a keen run, with levelled
shot-guns, and usually gave the word, “Halt! Throw up your hands
you sons of b——s!” If this latter command were not instantly
obeyed, there was the last of the offender; but, in case he complied,
as was usual, one or two sat on their horses, covering the party with
their guns, which were loaded with buck-shot, and one, dismounting,
disarmed the victims, and made them throw their purses on the
grass. This being done, and a search for concealed property being
effected, away rode the robbers, reported the capture and divided
the spoils.
The confession of two of their number one of whom, named
Erastus Yager alias Red, was hung in the Stinkingwater Valley, put
the Committee in possession of the names of the prominent men in
the gang, and eventually secured their death or voluntary
banishment. The most noted of the road agents, with a few
exceptions were hanged by the Vigilance Committee, or banished. A
list of the place and date of execution of the principle members of the
band is here presented. The remainder of the red calendar of crime
and retribution will appear after the account of the execution of
Hunter:

NAMES, PLACE AND DATE OF EXECUTION.

George Ives, Nevada City, Dec. 21st 1863; Erastus Yager (Red)
and G. W. Brown, Stinkingwater Valley, January 4th, 1864; Henry
Plummer, Ned Ray and Buck Stinson, Bannack City, January 10th,
1864; George Lane, (Club-foot George,) Frank Parish, Haze Lyons,
Jack Gallagher and Boone Helm, Virginia City, January 14th, 1864;
Steven Marsland, Big Hole Ranche, January 16th, 1864; William
Bunton, Deer Lodge Valley, January 19th, 1864; Cyrus Skinner,
Alexander Carter, and John Cooper, Hell Gate, January 25th, 1864;
George Shears, Frenchtown, January 24th, 1864; Robert Zachary,
Hell Gate, January 25th, 1864; William Graves alias Whiskey Bill,
Fort Owens, January 26th, 1864; William Hunter, Gallatin Valley,
February 3d, 1864; John Wagoner, (Dutch John) and Joe Pizanthia,
Bannack City, January 11th, 1864.
Judge Smith and J. Thurmond, the counsel of the road agents,
were banished. Thurmond brought an action, at Salt Lake, against
Mr. Fox, charging him with aiding in procuring his banishment. After
some peculiar developments of justice in Utah, he judiciously
withdrew all proceedings, and gave a receipt in full of all past and
future claims on the Vigilance Committee, in which instance he
exhibited a wise discretion—
“It’s no for naething the gled whistles.”
The Bannack branch of the Vigilantes also sent out of the country,
H. G. Sessions, convicted of circulating bogus dust, and one H. D.
Moyer, who furnished a room at midnight, for them to work in,
together with material for their labor. A man named Kustar was also
banished for recklessly shooting through the windows of the hotel
opposite his place of abode.
The circumstances attending the execution of J. A. Slade, and the
charges against him, will appear in full in a subsequent part of this
work. This case stands on a footing distinct from all the others.
Moore and Reeves were banished, as will afterwards appear, by a
miners’ jury, at Bannack, in the winter of 1863, but came back in the
Spring. They fled the country when the Vigilantes commenced
operations, and are thought to be in Mexico.
Charley Forbes was a member of the gang; but being wounded in
a scuffle, or a robbery, a doctor was found and taken to where he lay.
Finding that he was incurable, it is believed that Moore and Reeves
shot him, to prevent his divulging what he knew of the band; but this
is uncertain. Some say he was killed by Moore and Reeves, in Red
Rock Canon.
The headquarters of the marauders was Rattlesnake Ranche.
Plummer often visited it, and the robbers used to camp, with their
comrades, in little wakiups above and below it, watching, and ready
for fight, flight or plunder. Two rods in front of this building was a sign
post, at which they used to practice with their revolvers. They were
capital shots. Plummer was the quickest hand with his revolver of
any man in the mountains. He could draw the pistol and discharge
the five loads in three seconds. The post was riddled with holes, and
was looked upon as quite a curiosity, until it was cut down, in the
summer of 1863.
 Another favorite resort of the gang was Dempsey’s Cottonwood
Ranche. The owner knew the character of the robbers, but had no
connection with them; and, in those days, a man’s life would not
have been worth fifteen minutes purchase, if the possessor had
been foolish enough even to hint at his knowledge of their doings.
Daley’s, at Ramshorn Gulch, and ranches or wakiups on the
Madison, the Jefferson, Wisconsin Creek, and Mill Creek, were also
constantly occupied by members of the band.
By discoveries of the bodies of the victims, the confessions of the
murderers before execution, and reliable information sent to the
Committee, it was found that one hundred and two people had been
certainly killed by those miscreants in various places, and it was
believed, on the best information, that scores of unfortunates had
been murdered and buried, whose remains were never discovered,
nor their fate definitely ascertained. All that was known, was that
they started, with greater or less sums of money, for various places,
and were never heard of again.
 CHAPTER V.
THE DARK DAYS OF MONTANA.

“Will all Neptune’s Ocean wash this blood

Clean from my hand?”—Macbeth.
Henry Plummer, a sketch of whose previous career will appear in
a subsequent part of this narrative, came to Montana Territory from
Orofino. He and Reeves had there got into a difficulty with another
man, and had settled the matter in the way usual in the trade—that is
to say, they shot him.
Plummer—who, it seems, had for a long time contemplated a visit
to the States—made at once for the River, intending to go down by
boat; but finding that he was too late, he came back to Gold Creek,
and there met Jack Cleveland, an old acquaintance, and former
partner in crime. They made arrangements to pass the winter
together at Sun River Farm. Plummer was to attend to the chores
about the house, and Jack Cleveland was to get the wood. The
worthy couple true to their instincts, did not long remain in harmony,
but quarrelled about a young lady, whom Plummer afterwards
married. Neither would leave, unless the other went also, and at last
they both started, in company, for Bannack.
This town originated from the “Grasshopper Diggings,” which were
first discovered in the month of July, by John White and a small party
of prospectors, on the Grasshopper Creek, a tributary of the
Beaverhead. The discoverer, together with Rodolph Dorsett, was
murdered by Charley Kelly, in the month of December, 1863, near
the Milk Ranche, on the road from Virginia City to Helena. Wash
Stapleton and his party came in a short time after, and were soon
joined by others, among whom were W. B. Dance, S. T. Hauser,
James Morley, Drury Underwood, F. M. Thomson, N. P. Langford,
James Fergus, John Potter, Judge Hoyt and Dr. Hoyt, Chas. St.
Clair, David Thompson, Buz Caven, Messrs. Burchett, Morelle,
Harby, J. M. Castner, Pat Bray and brother, Sturges, Col. McLean, R.
C. Knox, and other well known citizens of Montana. The name,
“Bannack,” was given to the settlement, from the Bannack Indians,
the lords of the soil. It was the first “mining camp” of any importance,
discovered on the eastern slope of the Mountains, and as the stories
of its wonderful richness went abroad, hundreds of scattered
prospectors flocked in, and before the following Spring, the
inhabitants numbered upwards of a thousand.
It is probable that there never was a mining town of the same size
that contained more desperadoes and lawless characters, than did
Bannack, during the winter of 1862-3. While a majority of the citizens
were of the sterling stock, which has ever furnished the true
American pioneers, there were great numbers of the most desperate
class of roughs and road agents, who had been roving though the
mountains, exiles from their former haunts in the mining settlements,
from which they had fled to avoid the penalties incurred by the
commission of many a fearful crime. These men no sooner heard of
the rich mines of Bannack, than they at once made for the new
settlement, where, among strangers, ignorant of their crimes, they
would be secure from punishment, at least until their true character
should become known.
During their journey to Bannack, Cleveland often said, when a little
intoxicated, that Plummer was his meat. On their arrival at their
destination, they were, in Mountain phrase, “strapped;” that is, they
were without money or means; but Cleveland was not thus to be
foiled; the practice of his profession furnishing him with ample funds,
at the cost of a short ride and a pistol cartridge. In February, 1863, a
young man named George Evans, having a considerable sum of
money on his person, was hunting stock belonging to William Bates,
beyond Buffalo Creek, about eight miles from Bannack, and this
man, it is believed, was shot by Cleveland, and robbed, as the
murderer—who had no money at the time—was seen riding close to
the place, and the next day he had plenty. Evans’ partner, Ed.
Hibbert, got a horse from J. M. Castner, and searched for him in
vain, returning impressed with the belief that he had frozen to death.
In a short time, a herder named Duke, a partner of Jemmy Spence,
was also hunting cattle, when he found Evans’ clothes tucked into a
badger hole. A body, which, however, was never fully identified, was
found naked in the willows, with a shot wound in the right armpit. It
seems as if the victim had seen a man about to shoot, and had
raised his arm deprecatingly.
Shortly after this, Cleveland came in to Goodrich’s saloon, and
said he was chief; that he knew all the d——d scoundrels from the
“other side,” and would get even on some of them. A difficulty arose
between him and Jeff. Perkins, about some money which the latter
owed in the lower country. Jeff. assured him that he had settled the
debt, and thereupon Jack said, “Well, if it’s settled, it’s all right;” but
he still continued to refer to it, and kept reaching for his pistol.
Plummer, who was present, told him that if he did not behave
himself, he would take him in hand, for that Jeff. had settled the debt,
and he ought to be satisfied. Jeff. went home for his derringers, and
while he was absent, Jack Cleveland boastingly declared that he
was afraid of none of them. Plummer jumped to his feet instantly,
saying, “You d——d son of a b——h, I am tired of this,” and, drawing
his pistol, he commenced firing at Cleveland. The first ball lodged in
the beam overhead, where it still remains. The second struck him
below the belt, and he fell to his knees, grasping wildly at his pistol,
and exclaiming, “Plummer, you won’t shoot me when I’m down;” to
which Plummer replied, “No you d——d son of a b——h; get up,”
and, as he staggered to his feet, he shot him a little above the heart.
The bullet, however, glanced on the rib, and went round his body.
The next entered below the eye, and lodged in his head. The last
missile went between Moore and another man, who was sitting on
the bench. As may be supposed the citizen discovered that business
called him outside immediately; and, met George Ives, with a pistol
in his hand, followed by Reeves, who was similarly accoutred for the
summary adjustment of “difficulties.”
Singular enough, it must appear to the inhabitants of settled
communities, that a man was being shaved in the saloon at the time,
and neither he nor the operator left off business—custom is
everything, and fire-eating is demonstrably an acquired habit.
 Ives and Reeves each took Plummer by the arm, and walked
down street, asking as they went along: “Will the d——d strangling
sons of b——s hang you now?”
Hank Crawford was, at this time, boarding with L. W. Davenport, of
Bannack, and was somewhat out of health. His host came into the
room, and said that there was a man shot somewhere up town, in a
saloon. Crawford immediately went to where the crowd had
gathered, and found that such was the fear of the desperadoes, that
no one dared to lift the head of the dying man. Hank said aloud, that
it was out of the question to leave a man in such a condition, and
asked, “Is there no one that will take him home?” Some answered
that they had no room; to which he replied, that he had not, either,
but he would find a place for him; and, assisted by three others, he
carried him to his own lodging—sending a messenger for the doctor.
The unfortunate man lived about three hours. Before his decease,
he sent Crawford to Plummer for his blankets. Plummer asked
Crawford what Jack had said about him; Crawford told him,
“nothing.” “It is well for him,” said Plummer, “or I would have killed
the d——d son of a b——h in his bed.” He repeated his question
several times, very earnestly. Crawford then informed him that, in
answer to numerous inquiries by himself and others, about
Cleveland’s connections, he had said, “Poor Jack has got no friends.
He has got it, and I guess he can stand it.” Crawford had him
decently buried, but he knew, from that time, that Plummer had
marked him for destruction, fearing that some of Cleveland’s secrets
might have transpired, in which case he was aware that he would
surely be hung at the first opportunity.
No action was taken about this murder for some time. It required a
succession of horrible outrages to stimulate the citizens to their first
feeble parody of justice. Shooting, duelling, and outrage, were from
an early date, daily occurrences, in Bannack; and many was the foul
deed done, of which no record has been preserved. As an instance
of the free and easy state of society at this time, may be mentioned a
“shooting scrape” between George Carrhart and George Ives, during
the winter of ’62-3. The two men were talking together in the street,
close to Carrhart’s cabin. Gradually they seemed to grow angry, and
parted, Ives exclaiming aloud, “You d——d son of a b——h, I’ll shoot
you,” and ran into a grocery for his revolver. Carrhart stepped into his
cabin, and came out first, with his pistol in his hand, which he held by
his side, the muzzle pointing downwards. George Ives came out, and
turning his back on Carrhart, looked for him in the wrong direction—
giving his antagonist a chance of shooting him in the back, if he
desired to do so. Carrhart stood still till Ives turned, watching him
closely. The instant Ives saw him, he swore an oath, and raising his
pistol, let drive, but missed him by an inch or so, the bullet striking
the wall of the house, close to which he was standing. Carrhart’s first
shot was a miss-fire, and a second shot from Ives struck the ground.
Carrhart’s second shot flashed right in Ives’s face, but did no
damage, though the ball could hardly have missed more than a
hairs’ breadth. Carrhart jumped into the house, and reaching his
hand out, fired at his opponent. In the same fashion, his antagonist
returned the compliment. This was continued till Ives’s revolver was
emptied—Carrhart having one shot left. As Ives walked off to make
his escape, Carrhart shot him in the back, near the side. The ball
went through, and striking the ground in front of him, knocked up the
dust ahead of him. Ives was not to be killed by a shot, and wanted to
get another revolver, but Carrhart ran off down the street. Ives
cursed him for a coward “shooting a man in the back.” They soon
made up their quarrels, and Ives went and lived with Carrhart, on his
ranche, for the rest of the winter.
Accidents will happen in the best regulated families, and we give a
specimen of “casualties” pertaining to life in Bannack during this
delightful period. Dr. Biddle, of Minnesota, and his wife, together with
Mr. and Mrs. Short, and their hired man, were quietly sitting round
their camp fire on Grasshopper Creek, when J. M. Castner, thinking
that a lady in the peculiar situation of Mrs. Biddle would need the
shelter of a house, went over to the camp, and sitting down, made
his offer of assistance, which was politely acknowledged, but
declined by the lady, on the ground that their wagon was very
comfortably fitted up. Scarcely were the words uttered, when crack!
went a revolver, from the door of a saloon, and the ball went so close
to Castner’s ear, that it stung for two or three days. It is stated that
he shifted the position of his head with amazing rapidity. Mrs. Biddle
nearly fainted and became much excited, trembling with terror.
Castner went over to the house, and saw Cyrus Skinner in the act of
laying his revolver on the table, at the same time requesting a
gentleman who was playing cards to count the balls in it. He at first
refused, saying he was busy; but, being pressed, said, after making
a hasty inspection, “Well, there are only four.” Skinner replied, “I
nearly frightened the —— out of a fellow, over there.” Castner laid
his hand on his shoulder, and said, “My friend, you nearly shot Mrs.
Biddle.” Skinner declared that he would not have killed a woman “for
the world,” and swore that he thought it was a camp of Indians,
which would, in his view, have made the matter only an agreeable
pastime. He asked Castner to drink, but the generous offer was
declined. Probably the ball stuck in his throat. The Doctor accepted
the invitation. These courtesies were like an invitation from a Captain
to a Midshipman, “No compulsion, only you must.”
A little episode may here be introduced, as an illustration of an
easy method of settling debts, mentioned by Shakespeare. The
sentiment is the Earl of Warwick’s. The practical enforcement of the
doctrine is to be credited in this instance, to Haze Lyons, of the
Rocky Mountains, a self-constituted and energetic Receiver-General
of all moneys and valuables not too hot or too heavy for
transportation by man or horse, at short notice. The “King Maker”
says:
“When the debt grows burdensome, and cannot be
discharged
A sponge will wipe out all, and cost you nothing.”
The substitute for the “sponge” above alluded to, is, usually, in
cases like the following, a revolver, which acts effectually, by
“rubbing out” either the debt or the creditor, as circumstances may
render desirable. Haze Lyons owed a board bill to a citizen of
Bannack, who was informed that he had won $300 or $400 by
gambling the night before, and accordingly asked him for it. He
replied, “You son of a b——h, if you ask me for that again, I’ll make it
unhealthy for you.” The creditor generously refrained from farther
unpleasant inquiries, and the parties met again for the first time, face
to face, at the gallows, on which Haze expiated his many crimes.
 The next anecdote is suggestive of one, among many ways of
incidentally expressing dislike of a man’s “style” in business matters.
Buck Stinson had gone security for a friend, who levanted; but was
pursued and brought back. A mischievous boy had been playing
some ridiculous pranks, when his guardian, to whom the debt
mentioned was due, spoke to him severely, and ordered him home.
Buck at once interfered, telling the guardian that he should not
correct the boy. On receiving for answer that it certainly would be
done, as it was the duty of the boy’s protector to look after him, he
drew his revolver, and thrusting it close to the citizen’s face, saying,
“G—d d——n you, I don’t like you very well, any how,” was about to
fire, when the latter seized the barrel and threw it up. A struggle
ensued, and finding that he couldn’t fire, Stinson wrenched the
weapon out of his opponent’s hand, and struck him heavily across
the muscles of the neck, but failed to knock him down. The bar-
keeper interfering, Stinson let go his hold, and swore he would shoot
him; but he was quieted down. The gentleman being warned, made
his way home at the double-quick, or faster, and put on his revolver
and bowie, which he wore for fifteen days. At the end of this time,
Plummer persuaded Stinson to apologize, which he did, and
thereafter behaved with civility to that particular man.
The wild lawlessness and the reckless disregard for life which
distinguished the outlaws, who had by this time concentrated at
Bannack, will appear from the account of the first “Indian trouble.” If
the facts here stated do not justify the formation of a Vigilance
Committee in Montana, then may God help Uncle Sam’s nephews
when they venture west of the River, in search of new diggings. In
March, 1863, Charley Reeves, a prominent “clerk of St. Nicholas,”
bought a Sheep-eater squaw; but she refused to live with him,
alleging that she was ill-treated, and went back to her tribe, who
were encamped on the rise of the hill, south of Yankee Flat, about
fifty yards to the rear of the street. Reeves went after her, and sought
to force her to come back with him, but on his attempting to use
violence, an old chief interfered. The two grappled. Reeves, with a
sudden effort, broke from him, striking him a blow with his pistol,
and, in the scuffle, one barrel was harmlessly discharged.
 The next evening, Moore and Reeves, in a state of intoxication,
entered Goodrich’s saloon, laying down two double-barrelled shot-
guns and four revolvers, on the counter, considerably to the
discomfiture of the bar-keeper, who, we believe, would have sold his
position very cheap, for cash, at that precise moment, and it is just
possible that he might have accepted a good offer “on time.” They
declared, while drinking, that if the d——d cowardly white folks on
Yankee Flat, were afraid of the Indians, they were not, and that they
would soon “set the ball a rolling.” Taking their weapons, they went
off to the back of the houses, opposite the camp, and levelling their
pieces, they fired into the tepee, wounding one Indian. They returned
to the saloon and got three drinks more, boasting of what they had
done, and accompanied by William Mitchell, of Minnesota, and two
others, they went back, determined to complete their murderous
work. The three above named then deliberately poured a volley into
the tepee, with fatal effect. Mitchell, whose gun was loaded with an
ounce ball and a charge of buckshot, killed a Frenchman named
Brissette, who had run up to ascertain the cause of the first firing—
the ball striking him in the forehead, and the buckshot wounding him
in ten different places. The Indian chief, a lame Indian boy, and a
pappoose, were also killed; but the number of the parties who were
wounded has never been ascertained. John Burnes escaped with a
broken thumb, and a man named Woods was shot in the groin, of
which wound he has not yet entirely recovered. This unfortunate pair,
like Brissette, had come to see the cause of the shooting, and of the
yells of the savages. The murderers being told that they had killed
white men, Moore replied, with great sang froid, “The d——d sons
of b——s had no business there.”
 CHAPTER VI.
THE TRIAL.

Desponding fear, of feeble fancies full,

Weak and unmanly, loosens every power.—Thomson.
The indignation of the citizens being aroused by this atrocious and
unprovoked massacre, a mass meeting was held the following
morning to take some action in the premises. Charley Moore and
Reeves hearing of it, started early in the morning, on foot, towards
Rattlesnake, Henry Plummer preceding them on horseback. Sentries
were then posted all round the town, to prevent egress, volunteers
were called for, to pursue the criminals, and Messrs. Lear, Higgings,
O. J. Rockwell and Davenport at once followed on their track,
coming up with them where they had hidden, in a thicket of brush,
near the creek. The daylight was beginning to fade, and the cold was
intense when a reinforcement arrived, on which the fugitives came
out, delivered themselves up, and were conducted back to Bannack.
Plummer was tried and honorably acquitted, on account of
Cleveland’s threats. Mitchell was banished, but he hid around the
town for awhile, and never went away. Reeves and Moore were next
tried. Mr. Rheem had promised the evening before to conduct the
prosecution, and Judge Smith had undertaken the defense, when on
the morning of the trial, Mr. Rheem announced that he was retained
for the defense. This left the people without any lawyer or
prosecutor. Mr. Coply at last undertook the case, but his talents not
lying in that direction, he was not successful as an advocate. Judge
Hoyt, from St. Paul, was elected Judge, and Hank Crawford, Sheriff.
Owing to the peculiarly divided state of public opinion, it seemed
almost impossible to select an impartial jury from the neighborhood,
and therefore a messenger was sent to Godfrey’s Canon, where N.
P. Langford, R. C. Knox, A. Godfrey, and others, were engaged in
erecting a saw-mill, requesting them to come down to Bannack and
sit on the jury. Messrs. Langford and Godfrey came down at once, to
be ready for the trial the next day. The assembly of citizens
numbered about five or six hundred, and to them the question was
put, “Whether the prisoners should be tried by the people en masse,
or by a selected jury.” Some leading men advocated the first plan. N.
P. Langford and several prominent residents took the other side, and
argued the necessity for a jury. After several hours’ discussion, a jury
was ordered, and the trial proceeded. At the conclusion of the
evidence and argument, the case was given to the jury without any
charge. The Judge also informed them that if they found the
prisoners guilty, they must sentence them. At the first ballot, the vote
stood: For death, 1; against it, 11. The question of the prisoners’
guilt admitted of no denial. N. P. Langford alone voted for the
penalty of death. A sealed verdict of banishment and confiscation of
property was ultimately handed to the Judge, late in the evening.
Moore and Reeves were banished from the Territory, but were
permitted to stay at Deer Lodge till the Range would be passable.
In the morning, the Court again met, and the Judge informed the
people that he had received the verdict, which he would now hand
back to the foreman to read. Mr. Langford accordingly read it aloud.
From that time forward, a feeling of the bitterest hostility was
manifested by the friends of Moore, Reeves and Mitchell toward all
who were prominently connected with the proceedings.
During the trial, the roughs would swagger into the space allotted
for the Judge and Jury, giving utterance to clearly understood
threats, such as, “I’d like to see the G—d d——d Jury that would
dare to hang Charley Reeves or Bill Moore,” etc., etc., which
doubtless had fully as much weight with the Jury as the evidence
had. The pretext of the prisoners that the Indians had killed some
whites, friends of theirs, in ’49, while going to California, was
accepted by the majority of the jurors as some sort of justification;
but the truth is, they were afraid of their lives—and, it must be
confessed, not without apparent reason.
To the delivery of this unfortunate verdict may be attributed the
ascendancy of the roughs. They thought the people were afraid of
them. Had the question been left to old Californians or experienced
miners, Plummer, Reeves and Moore would have been hanged, and
much bloodshed and suffering would have been thereby prevented.
No organization of the Road Agents would have been possible.
 CHAPTER VII.
PLUMMER VERSUS CRAWFORD.

“I had rather chop this hand off at a blow

And with the other fling it at thy face,
Than bear so low a sail, to strike to thee.”
Shakspeare—Henry VI.
Crawford, who was appointed Sheriff at the trial of Moore and
Reeves, tendered his resignation on two or three different occasions;
but was induced to continue in office by the strongest
representations of his friends. They promised to stand by him in the
execution of his duty, and to remunerate him for his loss of time and
money. The arms taken from Plummer, Reeves and Mitchell were
sold by Crawford to defray expenses.
Popular sentiment is shifting and uncertain as a quicksand. Shortly
after this, “Old Tex,” one of the gang, collected a miners’ meeting,
and at it, it was resolved to give the thieves their arms, Plummer and
Tex claiming them as their property. The Sheriff had to go and get
them, paying, at the same time, all expenses, including in the list
even the board of the prisoners. For his services not a cent was ever
paid to him. Popular institutions are of divine origin. Government by
the people en masse is the acme of absurdity.
Cleveland had three horses at the time of his death. One was at a
Ranch at Bannack, and two were down on Big Hole. Crawford called
two meetings, and was authorized to seize Cleveland’s property and
sell it, in order to reimburse himself for his outlay, which was both
considerable in amount and various in detail, and repay himself for
his outlay and expenses of various kinds. He went to old Tex who
said that Jack Cleveland had a partner, named Terwilliger, (another
of the gang) who was absent, and that he had better leave them till
he came back. One day Crawford wanted to go to Beaverhead, and
wished to take one of the horses to ride. Tex said it would be wrong
to do so. In a day or two after, Crawford saw the horse in town, and
asking Tex if it was not the animal. He said “No, it was not;” but
Crawford, doubting his statement, inquired of a man that he knew
was perfectly well informed on the subject, and found that it was as
he supposed, and that the ranchman had brought it in for Tex to ride
during the journey he contemplated, with the intention of meeting
Terwilliger. Crawford ordered the horse back, and desired that it
should not be given to any one. The man took it as directed. When
the men were banished, Plummer went to the Ranch, took the horse
and rode it, when escorting the culprits out of town. He then brought
it back. Crawford who had charge of the horse, asked Hunter if Tex
had taken it. He said “no.”
The next evening, Crawford and some acquaintances went down
to the bakery to take a drink, and there met Plummer, who accused
him of ordering the horse to be kept from him, which he denied, and
said he never mentioned his name. Hunter being called by Plummer
confirmed the statement. He also observed, that he thought that as
Plummer had killed the man, he need not wish to take his money
and his goods also. Plummer then remarked that Bill Hunter did not
stand to what he had said, and left the house. He had dared
Crawford to remain and face Hunter’s testimony, expecting to raise a
row and shoot him. Crawford accepted the challenge, and,
surrounded by his friends, with their hands on their six shooters,
awaited his coming. If he had moved his hand to his pistol, he would
have died on the spot, and knowing this, he cooled off.
The next day he sent word to Crawford, by an old mountaineer,
that he had been wrongly informed, and that he wished to meet him
as a friend. He replied that he had been abused without cause, and
that, if he wanted to see him, he must come himself, as he was not
going to accept of such apologies by deputy. Plummer sent word two
or three times, to Hank, in the same way, and received the same
reply; till at last some of the boys brought them together, and they
shook hands, Plummer declaring that he desired his friendship ever
after.