trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

President Grover Cleveland backed a September Labor Day in 1894 to avoid association with the May Day commemoration of the Haymarket affair.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that President Grover Cleveland backed a September Labor Day in 1894 to avoid association with the May Day commemoration of the Haymarket affair?

Yes. A Wikipedia article on Labor Day states that Grover Cleveland, concerned a May 1 labor holiday would become a commemoration of the Haymarket affair, publicly backed the September Labor Day holiday as a less inflammatory alternative and signed it into federal law in 1894. A second source confirms only that Cleveland signed the September Labor Day bill on June 28, 1894, without addressing his motive.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 2 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence for · 2
Labor Day - Wikipedia
Get citation
Labor Day - Wikipedia. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day

See more details
More for · 1
Back to Policy Design: The Inflation Reduction Act’s Conservation Assistance
2025
Get citation
Back to Policy Design: The Inflation Reduction Act’s Conservation Assistance. (2025). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.358448

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work