The Progressive Era
I’m not sure why, but the progressives always seem so boring to me. I know they’re not. Theodore Roosevelt was a ball of energy; Jane Addams was smart and savvy; World War I was horrendous; Upton Sinclair was hilarious; W. E. B. Du Bois was a genius. So why does the era seem so dull and naïve? Probably because the progressives had yet to experience WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII. I want them to be modern as modernity was depressed by those events. They had yet to be morally chastened and challenged, as Reinhold Neibuhr would express and try to ethically understand.
 |
| <http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/ Kemmler-Torture-Death7aug1890.htm> |
So how do I get my students to believe, at least for a moment, the belief progressives had? And this is where I start: belief. What defines the progressive era, I think, is mass belief that the nation and world could be made better. The problems of Reconstruction and the Gilded Age could be rectified. Progress could be made through: efficiency, stability, safety, empathy, and democracy.
Efficiency: whether it’s Taylorism in the work place, or execution through electrocution, or cutting a canal through Central America, a progressive goal was to make society and the world more efficient.
Stability: whether it was TR trying to bring stability to coal strikes or to the Western Hemisphere, or whether it was the Federal Reserve Act created under Woodrow Wilson’s tenure, the goal was to bring stability to the nation’s economy, labor force, and international relations.
Safety: factories were dangerous places; cities were dangerous places; hell, the food itself was dangerous. The Pure Food and Drug Act was to make edibles more safe. Margaret Sanger wanted women to treat their bodies safely. And when the United States entered WWI, it was, as Wilson put it, “to make the world safe…”
Empathy: lots of progressives hoped that empathy could reign where disdain had ruled. Jane Addams hoped for that in Chicago. W. E. B. Du Bois hoped for that when he published The Souls of Black Folk – that somehow understanding across the color line would lead to the “contact of living souls.” Muckrakers like Upton Sinclair hoped that descriptions of everyday life (we can debate, of course, whether he got it right) would compel action and lead to greater sensitivity.
And finally, democracy was an order of the day. Enfranchising women … check (all women, no, but at least some African Americans hoped the new constitutional amendment would get black men and women to the polls in the South). Senators elected directly by citizens … check. Initiative, referendum, and recall … in some places, check, check, and check. And finally, what was Woodrow Wilson going to make safe? “the world for democracy.”
Grand goals; grand visions. Belief killed Wilson; it chastened Du Bois; and it left Addams feeling alone. But the point was belief in progress and change. The progressive era, I hope, offers my college students a little reprieve from the “gilded” focus of American history – that hope and belief matter too, and they can be historically significant.
So … as always, what am I missing here? Next week, I’ll discuss the primary documents from Major Problems and the coverage in Hist, but I’d love to hear some other viewpoints.
The document I am discussing is the 4th document in Chapter four (Imperialism and World Power) of Major Problems entitled “The American Anti-Imperialist League Denounces U.S. Policy, 1899.”
A line that really stood out to me in this document was, “the attempt of 1899 is to destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals…” The Anti-imperialist league views imperialism hostile to liberty and everyone in the United States is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, I find it interesting that while the United States had always protested against “subjugation of the weak by the strong” they’re continuing to fight in the Philippines.
Since we have practiced self-government for years, why is despotism now coming into the picture? Also, at the end, the anti-imperialist league invites everyone to join them in their cause. How big and powerful were they and how much of a difference did they end up making within our nation?
Really good point again Dana! And perhaps we can think of how was America a despotism even before the Spanish-American wars? Was slavery a form of despotism? To answer how powerful they were, perhaps look into the 1900 presidential election to see how Bryan did.
The article I found most interesting was article number 7 in chapter 5 titled, “Reformer Frederic Howe Compares America and Germany,1911.”
This article was interesting because Howe discussed how he believed Germany was more efficient than America. I thought this related to two of Professor Blum’s ideas of progress: efficiency and democracy. German officials believe that “the city should do anything it sees fit to do provided it will improve the city.” This is the sense of efficiency that America was trying to achieve but wasn’t succeeding . Germany was striving towards a better place to live but America thought “the city should do just as little as possible, and that any concession from this principle is fraught with extreme danger.”
I think it’s interesting though that Germany was the model. I would have never previously thought of Germany as a country Americans would refer to as a role model, but in the case of trade and production their actions brought them to the front of the European union. This was something a growing nation such as America should consider during the progressive era.
For this post, I will actually be discussing two documents that can be seen as juxtapositions of one another. The first document is document number 3 in Chapter 5 of Major Problems entitled “Black Educator Booker T. Washington Advocates Compromise and Self-Reliance, 1901.” The second document I will discuss is document number 4 in Chapter 5 of Major Problems entitled “NAACP Founder W. E. B. DuBois Denounces Compromise on Negro Education and Civil Rights, 1903.”
The first document was written by Booker T. Washington, the educator/reformer. Washington discussed his philosophy of self-reliance/self-help. For the time being, Washington encouraged African Americans to accept discrimination and segregation. He encouraged fellow African Americans to instead focus on prosperity and hard work. Washington discussed the importance of farming and industrial work while focusing on perfecting the traits of patience and self-reliance. Washington believed that this would win the respect of whites and lead African Americans to become more accepted as citizens. Washington describes that “It is the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities.” Washington tried to preach to fellow African Americans that their time will come if they put in the hard work.
On the other hand, the second document, written by W. E. B. DuBois, an African American scholar, disagreed with Washington. It was Dubois’ belief that if African Americans listened to Washington, white oppression would increase. Instead of waiting for their time to come, DuBois argued for African American civil rights now. One other aspect that DuBois and Washington differed on was their views on education for young African Americans. DuBois argued that they only way that social change would come about was with the education of African American youth.
It is clear to me that W. E. B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington very much disagreed on strategies to bring about social change for African Americans. My only question is: was there a pretty clear cut line as to who the majority of African Americans sided with? I know that DuBois went straight through to the Civil Rights movement so did Washington’s view take a backseat to the views of DuBois?
Thanks,
Devin W.
The article I will be discussing is Chapter 5, Document 6: “Social Worker Jane Addams Advocates Civic Housekeeping, c. 1906.”
This document was really interesting because Addams inserts that “men have been carelessly indifferent to much of this civic housekeeping, as they have always been indifferent to the details of the household.” She argues that men in the past had no prior effort in child care, clean houses, and prepared food, then suddenly they wanted revolutionize these particular areas of concerns, such as unsanitary housing, infant mortality, poisonous sewage, and etc. If the traditional idea was to let women handle “housekeeping” why aren’t men letting women in these specific areas? Women have been suppressed for a long period of time, yet this time they have been put aside in which they are experienced in. Addams believed that women should have a voice in this place, particularly since “housekeeping” is the traditional occupation for women. Women can perform civic housekeeping duties in cities to promote health, sanitary ideas and more, especially when cities wanted more contributors. In fact, Addams believes that these problems should be solved but not through an industrial/military viewpoint, instead through the view point with human-welfare.
If housekeeping was a normal task for women, why can’t they contribute to “cleaning cities” with a political voice? Women have been housekeeper all their lives, shouldn’t they be the perfect role model to listen to, in terms of cleaning up?
The document that I will be discussing is document 6 from Chapter 4 of Major Problems entitled “A Soldier Criticizes American Racism in the Philippines, 1902.”
This document proved to be of interest to me because it was written by a soldier who was fighting in the Philippines. Instead of praising the work that the soldiers were doing, the soldier instead claims that they were making more enemies than friends. The soldier describes that the situation “is slowly retrograding, the American sentiment is decreasing, and we are daily making permanent enemies.” When a country is at war, it is the hope that generally the soldiers agree with what they are doing in that country. If the soldiers, on the other hand, see that they are doing more harm than good, the popular interest of the war back home is probably not going to be so good.
One question that I do have about this document is: were most of the soldiers under the impression that they were doing more harm than good in the Philippines? Also, did a lot of soldiers speak out about this or was this a rare thing to hear from a soldier disapproving of how things were being handled?
Thanks,
Devin W
I am going to discuss document 1 from chapter four entitled “President William Mckinley Asks for War to Liberate Cuba, 1898.”
I found it very interesting that William Mckinley believed so strongly that it was their duty to intervene in the war. It was not their duty, it was in a different country and it belonged to another nation, so we should not be getting into any other countries dirty work if we are not asked for help. Even though i do not agree with what William Mckinley is saying in this document I believe that he is very persuasive and makes some points that might gain a lot of support to his views. Mckinley says its our duty because we trade with them and if their was devastation to the island then it would only hurt our businesses in return. He also claims that their government will not be able to stop the mass blood shed that is going on in their country and we cant just sit back and watch.
One question I have about the document is I am wondering how the public as a whole responded to his statements and what percentage agreed and/or disagreed with him.
The article I will be discussing is “Journalist Lincoln Steffens Exposes the Shame of Corruption, 1904.”
The reason I am picking this article is from the radical first line that states, “the misgovernment of the American people is misgovernment by the American people.” That statement is has so much power and progressive thought put into it. Steffens realized that Americans were misgoverned because they misgoverned themselves. The realizations that from “Senator to Alderman” a businessman has been elected and yet politics finds itself still corrupt. His progressive, radical idea is that the American people need to “establish a steady demand for good government.” His idea is that creating a politician that we vote for not based on party or even the man himself, but for the nation, as a whole would create good government. At that time when the machine ruled the political sphere, the idea that voters do this was in line with the rouge, progressive ideology of the time that really gets me excited for the progressive era. This break from tradition is what defines the progressive era and Steffens captures it so well with his radical change to politics.
I will be discussing, “Social Worker Jane Adams advocates Civic Housekeeping”. Jane Adams is a good example of a reformer of this time period. She saw a problem, acted, and spread the word. She also mentions a new notion, the human welfare point of view. The affluent tend to think that poverty is the fault of the poor. However, Jane Adams realized that is simply not true. She saw a problem with infant mortality, and hazardous living conditions among the poor. She also saw that they did not have the resources to help themselves. Many of the poor she was helping were immigrants with little possessions, money, or hope of a job. Their living conditions were crowded because they had no other option.
I will be discussing the first article of chapter 5 titled, “W.C.T.U. Blasts Drinking and Smoking, and Demands Power to Protect, 1883”. After reading this article I concluded that I definitely was not a fan of the language used in this era. Aside from that, it is interesting seeing the frustration and tempatation built upon the banning of alcohol. He states, “I saw a picture desplayed in the empty windows of the closed saloons, which was artfully contrived to arouse the dormant appetite of every drinking man…”. This really gave me the sense that folks in this era were almost dependent on alcohol. The description of the empty saloon made me question what happened to all of the alcohol and business once it was banned? I assume that was a major part of the economy at that time and wonder what affects this had?
The document that I will be talking about is from chapter 4, Document 6, “A soldier Criticizes American Racism in the Philippines, 1902”. This write-up was interesting because ti was from a different propective of a soldier in war, and that was for defending the natives to which he was fighting in. Usually I take veterans to be “gung-ho” America and proud of what they were fighting for, but this account, the soldier describes how America “making permanent enemies” instead of fighting for unity. It is hard to find the motivation to put your life on the line for your country, let alone do it when you don’t even see the point of it. I can see the unrest in the time of America is even the people physically fighting for the freedom aren’t necessarily agreeing with the reasons why.
I guess my confusion or question would be if this was just one account or was the majority of soldiers primarily against the outcomes of the wars in the Philippines? If most were, did people just no talk about it in fear of being seen as anti-american? or Were the voices heard? i couldn’t imagine being in that environment and then not even seeing the point of it. I have respect for the soldier that wrote this and it goes to show that America had different opinions than what the government ordered them to do.
The document I wanted to discuss was “Reformer Frederic Howe Compares America and Germany, 1911.” The reason why I wanted to point out this document is correlation to the Progressive Era was because of how it is compared. America is not just different in so many ways; it is unlike anything in Germany at all. We see the difference of America from its hierarchal order: individuals, populations, as a nation, and as a demographic location. As Germany was already a highly civil society that was self-sustaining, America was full of immigrants from around the world, thus giving businessmen the opportunity to take advantage of those seeking new lives. As the document stated, “The American city, on the other hand, is in chains. It has great power for evil and but limited power for good.” I think this document was to point out all of America’s corruption in order to actually try to make it better.