1. How are Goldman and Frick's claims about the Homestead strike different? And who’s claim is more believable

The difference between the claims that were made by Goldman and Frick was that Goldman was in support of the strike and wrote of the issues that led to it while Frick tried to absolve himself of all blames.

Goldman's claim is more believable because she was there as a political activist and a witness.

The homestead strike had happened due to the grievance of workers in the Andrew Carnegie Steel against their employers. The workers union had asked for a raise, instead of this, Frick gave them a salary decrease.

This led to strikes and fights that got to a violent stage. Frick hired men to fight against the strikers, while the strikers responded by standing their grounds. This led to death on both sides.

Read more on link

Goldman was in favor of the union, while Frick was against.

Explanation:

The Homestead strike was one of the biggest labor conflicts in US history and represented a battle against the top trade union representing technical professionals in the iron and steel industry and major steel companies.

In the face of the events of the strike Goldman was extremely in favor of the claims of the unions, stating that the working class, as an essential member of the means of production, should have their claims met, so that the work could be continued.

Frick, on the other hand, was strongly against the union and claimed that the working class was a weak minority and that minorities are the ones who should be bowing to the majorities and not the other way around.

Goldman's claims are presented in a more credible way, since without the working class the means of production cannot act, being therefore the most important class within the production systems and must be the most privileged class.