lang: en
Summary
In January 1919, prisoners at Fort Leavenworth military prison in Kansas, including conscientious objectors and political radicals, conducted a labor strike demanding better conditions, reduced sentences, and the establishment of a permanent grievance committee. The first strike succeeded in winning immunity for participants, a review of sentences by the War Department, and the creation of the General Prisoners’ Conference Committee. A second strike in July 1919, led by newly transferred military prisoners, failed and resulted in the abolition of the committee and increased repression.
Background
After the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, the Selective Service Act and the Espionage and Sedition Act led to the imprisonment of conscientious objectors, political radicals, and ex-soldiers at Fort Leavenworth. The prison population swelled from 1,600 to 3,600 men, creating overcrowded conditions and excessive, inconsistent sentences. Prisoners sought better living conditions, reduced sentences, and a formal mechanism to address grievances.
What happened
On 29 January 1919, a group of 150 prisoners stopped work, beginning a labor strike. [source: nv-database] That night, a fire set by three prisoners caused $100,000 damage, though its connection to the strike is unclear [source: nv-database]. The next day, 2,300 prisoners refused to work and organized committees in each wing, electing leaders and drafting demands: that Colonel Rice recommend immediate release of military prisoners, immunity for strikers, and recognition of a permanent grievance committee [source: nv-database]. On 31 January, Colonel Rice met with prisoner leaders and agreed to grant immunity and to take their request to the War Department; prisoners voted unanimously to return to work [source: nv-database]. The War Department appointed a Judge Advocate Review Board to review sentences, and the prison established the General Prisoners’ Conference Committee, composed of 40 elected prisoners and 35 elected ‘honor men’ [source: nv-database]. Over the next months, the committee improved discipline, meals, sanitation, recreation, and correspondence, and five members were given responsibility over adjudication of minor rule violations [source: nv-database]. By June 1919, about 60% of prisoners received reduced sentences [source: nv-database]. In July 1919, after most conscientious objectors were released or transferred, a new population of military prisoners from France organized a second strike demanding general amnesty, better food, and the return of two transferred prisoners [source: nv-database]. Prison officials labeled it a mutiny, placed all prisoners in solitary confinement on bread and water for three days, called in soldiers from Fort Riley and other posts, searched cells, and kept prisoners on bread and water for another three days [source: nv-database]. The strike collapsed, the General Prisoners’ Conference Committee was abolished, and guards increased discipline and built armed gun platforms [source: nv-database].
Key people & organizations
- H. Austin Simons
- W. Oral James
- Carl Haessler
- Colonel Sedgwick Rice
- General Prisoners’ Conference Committee
- United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth
- United States War Department
Tactics used
The prisoners used refusal of impressed labor and organized strikes to disrupt prison operations, combined with committee formation and direct negotiation to present unified demands. This combination of work stoppage and structured dialogue forced prison authorities to negotiate and make concessions. [source: nv-database]
Outcome
Verdict: partial.
The first strike achieved all its demands: immunity, a sentence review board, and a permanent grievance committee that brought tangible improvements. However, the second strike failed completely, leading to the abolition of the committee and harsher conditions, so the overall outcome is partial. [source: nv-database]
Lessons
- Prisoner strikes can succeed when they are well-organized, nonviolent, and present clear, negotiable demands to authorities.
- Changes in the composition of the prisoner population can shift the dynamics and outcomes of subsequent actions.
- Establishing a representative committee can institutionalize gains and improve conditions, but it remains vulnerable to repression if authorities choose to reassert control.
Sources
- Global Nonviolent Action Database —
[[nv-database]]
Disclaimer: Included as a teaching example of campaign craft, not as endorsement.
Sources & verification
nv-database— grounding: primary — license: link-only- Rewritten: 2026-06-25 via
worker_casestudies_v2.py