Book Circle Reflections 2010-2011
This page contains reflections written by the participants in the Teaching American History Book Circles. The work reflects the teachers' thoughts following their reading and discussion of the books read this year.
Book#5
After reading and discussing America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s by Maurice Isserman and Michael Kazin, Smithtown teachers offer their comments on the question:
Was the civil rights movement the real force behind the emergence of the social, cultural and political movements of the 1960s?
Important, but...
Sue Ryan writes:
The civil rights movement was perhaps the catalyst for many of the social, cultural, and political movements of the 1960s, but sole credit should not be given here. Dating back to as early as the Progression era, women were fighting for equal rights. This paved the way for other causes such as the civil rights movements and anti-war movements. The youth of America, across all racial boundaries, joined in mass to protest and support these political movements; creating what was regarded at the time as a counterculture. They challenged such things as employment practices, America’s foreign policies, treatment of the environment, even the way the American family was perceived. They brought a revolution to the music world and perhaps an openness or acceptance of people from all walks of life. In closing, the civil rights movements did indeed give the American people momentum for change, but other factors came into play.
Christina Cone writes:
I would argue that the civil rights movement was not the sole force behind the emergence of the social, cultural and political movements of the 1960s, but rather that it was a contributor and part and parcel of the time. Movements toward racial equality were taking place in the 1950s with such actions as Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955. The methods and strategies utilized by those to help propel change for African-Americans did have a lasting impact on the United States and certainly were carried over to the next decade. The success of civil disobedience, boycotts, leaflets, grassroots organizations and the like in garnering advancements in civil rights all inspired others who were championing causes to follow suit. I would also argue that the rights granted for African-Americans helped lead to the social acceptance and expectations of civil rights for other oppressed groups, such as women and homosexuals. However, the authors argue that the "liberalism that began in the 1950s represented....a political sensibility reflecting a new social environment." The new generation was speaking out and speaking up for progressive changes. This is the generation that grew up after WWII in relative affluence and had the education, time, and resources to devote toward civic-minded causes. I believe that the state of foreign affairs in Vietnam, the threat of a nuclear war, the ongoing civil rights struggle, the issue of women's rights, gay rights, environmentalism, and more all combined to create the movements of the time period.
Chauncey Cone writes:
I believe that the civil rights movement set the precedent and stage for the social, cultural and political upheavals of the 1960s, but these actions may have come about without the civil rights movement. One can trace the beginning of the modern civil rights movement back to the desegregation of the armed forces by Harry Truman in 1948. This inspired and was followed in the next decade by ground breaking events such as Brown v. BOE and the Montgomery bus boycott. The success and ramifications of these two events helped to spur a larger movement that eventually led to equal rights for African Americans of this nation. The events played out during the civil rights movement inspired other groups to fight for justice in society. So one can argue that the strides made by African Americans in the 40s and 50s proved to be an inspiration for the political, social and cultural movements in the 1960s.
However, while the civil rights movement may have inspired other movements, there were other reasons why the 60s were so turbulent. The fact that there was a large surge in population, the baby boomers, which were now attending college in numbers never seen before in the U.S. helped to shape this era. These kids were not like their parents, who were complacent in their ways and happy to live during the post war consensus. The younger generation learned about the world around them and the injustices people faced and in turn sought to make a difference here at home. These students decided to use any spare time they had to exercise their First Amendment rights by expressing their opposition to Vietnam and the social injustices that our country faced. So while the civil rights movement may not have been the sole reason for the social, cultural and political upheavals of the 1960s, it did play a part in helping to shape that era.
Nancy Stewart writes:
We certainly can’t discount the civil rights movement and its effect on culture, society, and politics, and that movement began even before the 1960’s; in class we even questioned when that was – the 1950’s? the 1940’s? way back in the time of the abolition movement? The civil rights movement laid the groundwork for what was to follow in terms of organized protests and the use of litigation to make these social strides. So I think in many ways the civil rights movement starts the ball rolling as we head toward the movements of the late 1960’s and 1970’s – women’s rights, the sexual revolution, gay rights, the environmental movement, and so on. But as we head into the second half of the 1960’s Vietnam becomes the key issue. In many ways the Vietnam War represents the first time that Americans really believe that the United States is wrong on an issue – and if they’re wrong on this one, then what about other ones? Thus, people are led to challenge other social and cultural assumptions. Further, the Vietnam era made it more acceptable to participate in protest movements, especially for middle class youth, who in many ways are also the first generation to have the economic security which affords them the luxury of being able to do this.
Paul DeMatteo writes:
Was the Civil Rights Movement responsible for what has become known simply as THE 60’s… in part, but to say that it was the only thing going on in the 1960’s, I would not agree. Post World War 2 America was fertile for change. Our soldiers fought a war against naked aggression and for peoples very right to exist. The Veterans who survived the War and the Great Depression in which they were exposed; wanted to create and maintain the American Dream for themselves and their children. It’s the baby boomers – that generation born to the “greatest generation” - where the seeds of discontent were planted by the safety and boredom of suburbia. The “upheaval” simmered under the surface of the Eisenhower 50’s. The American teenager was born. Conditioned by the mass media of television and Rock’n Roll Music on the radio. They were also armed with a disposable income and many had their eyes on a college education. The 1960’s provided both the flame and the accelerant. Another generation was entering the American consumer culture. Television provided the pictures – the radio provided the lyrics and the college campus helped spread the discontent, which trickled down to the High Schools through siblings and relatives. Its easy to assume a cause and protest from the comfort of suburbia. Civil Rights movement started way before. By the 1960’s protest was just trendy, just pick a cause! The Vietnam Draft just added fuel to the already burning fires.
Shaun Minton writes:
No. I do not think it was the force behind these movements. I think the force behind these movements was the social and demographic status set up by the New Deal after World War 2. Due to the creation of a large middle class in the post war years, you had a large number of baby boomers with the education, leisure time, and economic status who wanted to reject their backgrounds, socialize, and glorify rebellion. They had a host of reasons to rebel against conformity. I believe the civil rights movement, Vietnam, the gay rights movement and all these other social movements were just vehicles to express the rebellion of the 1960s. However I due believe the Civil Rights Movement was the most important of these movements because it shaped the way the other movements would be organized and executed.
Sue Ryan writes:
The civil rights movement was perhaps the catalyst for many of the social, cultural, and political movements of the 1960s, but sole credit should not be given here. Dating back to as early as the progression era, women were fighting for equal rights. This paved the way for other causes such as the civil rights movements and anti-war movements. The youth of America, across all racial boundaries, joined in mass to protest and support these political movements; creating what was regarded at the time as a counterculture. They challenged such things as employment practices, America’s foreign policies, treatment of the environment, even the way the American family was perceived. They brought a revolution to the music world and perhaps an openness or acceptance of people from all walks of life. In closing, the civil rights movements did indeed give the American people momentum for change, but other factors came into play.
Anna Fisk writes:
The civil rights movement was one of several forces happening in the 1960s which contributed to the social, cultural and political upheavals of that decade. More than any one distinctive force, the sixties found America with a large group of middle and upper class college educated youth who were ripe to bring social change. These children of baby boomers had for the first time the luxury of being able to philosophize about life and rile against perceived wrongs from the comfort of their middle class lives. It is this attitude of rebellion against the “status quo” that is the real driving force behind many of the movements of the decade as this generation felt empowered to bring about change with their new “status” in life as “saviors” of just causes. The civil rights movement benefitted from this mobilization of young people as well as other issues such as the fight against hunger and equality for women. Questioning the status quo also meant question all authority including the government which pushed reforms such as allowing the 18 year old the right to vote. More so than any one particular movement, it is the mood and ability of the youth of America at this time that drives much of change in this decade.
Cathy Sebesta writes
According to Isserman and Kazin; the answer is a resounding and seemingly simple “of course it was”. Vietnam, drugs, sex and rock & roll had a lot to do with the results of the 1960’s’ uprisings and huge changes they brought.
The authors reach far back to the Truman administration in the ’50s along with George Meany, (labor) and others. It was to trace the war involvement that ended disastrously in the Vietnam debacle. An interesting part of the writing of this book is that both sides of our military involvement in this and other military problems were presented.
Having a memory of that time, I need to mention that not all the young people during the late fifties through the late 70’s were involved in the upheaval, and often violent shenanigans of those who wanted change in our policies, attitudes and mores. There were many who disagreed with the damaging and unacceptable maneuvers of those who protested the war. Bombing of university labs, that cost the lives of innocent people, sit-ins that destroyed the physical plant, and the wanton killing of policemen on the job, were main points of contention at the time.
The role the demonstrations and bloodshed connected to the ‘civil rights movement’ played is undeniable. For at least a hundred years, reforms in the treatment of minorities, women and social behavior that deviated from the accepted ‘norm’ were at various times challenged and questioned. Not until the upheaval of all those areas in the ‘60’s following quickly on the heels of the civil rights movement, and the violent demonstrations that brought, was there a huge cultural change. The drug culture did change the way just about everything was done.
While I can’t endorse that the civil rights movement was the real force behind the many cultural movements in the ‘60’s, it did play a big role. It was sort of the ‘permission’ to become violent when you wanted a change. [THE peaceful demonstrations for civil rights as those led by ML King Jr. were peaceful, but after such demonstrations, or when Rev. King was jailed, violent demonstrations would break out in the inner-city neighborhoods, complete with fire-bombing businesses, overturning cars and setting them on fire, and violence against policemen.] Drugs, especially the presence of ‘crack’, was something you would read about in the newspapers first as a warning that it would be coming soon; and then when it hit the cities, there were some articles saying how this would change society. Once drug use became prevalent, the usual family structure and influence on public behavior of the young members of society was diminished. The influence of family, religion and the rule of law were decreased, and so these other factors have to be held as partially responsible as well
Joan Lopardo writes:
Book #4
After reading and discussing The Specter of Communism: The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917-1953 by Melvin Leffler, Smithtown teachers offer their comments on the question:
Leffler's main thesis is that American foreign policy was based on the belief that Communism was potentially destructive to "the economy of liberal capitalism" and that this was the main reason for the course taken by the United States in the twentieth century. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? Explain.
I disagree...
Christina Cone writes:
I disagree that the main reason for American foreign policy decisions was that communism was seen as destructive to the "economy of liberal capitalism." While I do believe that economic concerns were the impetus for some foreign policy decisions, I don't think they were the overriding factor. In policy making regarding Western Europe in the 1940s I do believe that the U.S. administration was concerned with the vital resources in the region and saw Western Europe as a core industrial area that needed to be safeguarded. However, there was such a fear that if the Soviets dominated too much than the U.S. would have to "reshape its own political and economic system and become a garrison state." This was unfounded and "chicken-littlish. " While economic concerns played a role in some actions, I believe that decisions were made based on fear, what-if's, and were overly reactionary in nature. The ideological motives were stronger than the economic factors.
Christy Ortiz writes:
I disagree that American foreign policy was based on the belief that communism was potentially destructive to “the economy of liberal capitalism” and that this was the main reason for the course taken by the United States in the twentieth century. It seems as though President Eisenhower had a chance to end the Cold War when he came to office. At this time, Stalin had died and his successors were open to peace talks. Despite this, Eisenhower decided to continue the current strategies and focus on building power. With governmental agencies like the CIA and FBI growing and the military budget expanding, the United States was starting to lose track of the ideals that it had been trying so hard to protect. I think the United States just ended up overestimating the power and influence of the Soviet Union and worked to make sure that the U.S. was always in control.
Sue Ryan writes:
It is quite possible that our American foreign policy was based on the belief that Communism was potentially destructive to “economy of liberal Capitalism”; but more than likely other factors came into play. In the United States, we believe in democracy and free enterprise, but we are also humanitarians. We want to be the protectors of the world, champions of the underdogs. Hence the US instituted the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine to aid countries in need, whereby creating allies and trading alliances. Additionally many of our actions toward the Communist regime were based on our prognostication that Russia would become a super power.
Joan Lopardo writes:
I don’t agree that the main reason for the course taken by the U.S. in the 20th Century regarding its foreign policy was based solely on the belief that Communism was potentially destructive to “the economy of liberal capitalism.” Although economic interests were part of the motivation, it appears that U.S. foreign policy was partly humanitarian and partly reactionary, based on political ideology and assessments of Soviet actions and behavior. After World War II, U.S. actions were taken to create allies and a stronger economic foundation in Europe, and to provide reconstruction. By doing so, America provided aid to people who would have otherwise starved and it also provided opportunities for democratic governments to thrive. The Marshall Plan provided financial support to France and Italy, where Communist parties were active and pressure was being put on them by Russia. The Truman Doctrine prevented Communism from spreading to Greece and Turkey while creating allies and economic partners. The U.S. offered billions of dollars to Germany, Japan, and Russia to rebuild their infrastructure after the war. When Russia refused the money and refused to withdraw from Eastern European countries, this was interpreted by the U.S. as a sign of aggression. However, Stalin wished to have a land buffer to protect Russia from any future aggression, particularly on the part of Germany and he was concerned with retaining his power. He was also concerned with getting the atomic bomb to end the nuclear supremacy that the United States had attained in 1945. One example of actions and reactions is Stalin’s lack of cooperation regarding the rebuilding of Germany and his lack of interest in finding a solution to the economic problems in Germany being greeted with suspicion. As a result, both the U.S. and Russia seem to have reacted to the actions and behavior of each other, which resulted in a Cold War that lasted for a major part of the last half of the century. Therefore, foreign policy appears to have been driven by other factors, such as the Domino Theory and the containment of Communism.
Shaun Minton writes:
Chauncey Cone writes:
I disagree with Leffler's main thesis that American foreign policy was based on the belief that Communism was potentially destructive to "the economy of liberal capitalism" and that this was the main reason for the course taken by the United States in the twentieth century. While economic reasons may have played a role, one cannot downplay the clash of ideologies on issues such as religion and hegemony, as well as the differing philosophies over which form of government should be put into place in Eastern European countries. Another issue that greatly affected the course of action taken by the U.S. was in regards to national security. For these reasons, as well as economic reasons, the two nations began a series of steps that heightened mistrust of one another and therefore furthered the escalation of the Cold War.
Mary Goldberg writes:
I am not totally convinced that American foreign policy was based only on the belief that Communism would potentially destroy the “economy of liberal capitalism” and that the US had to take a specific course of action as suggested by Leffler. Certainly, protection of our capitalist economy is something we need to do in order to sustain our economic self interests and existence. We needed countries that would participate in a free market system thus creating trade partners in a global world or it would threaten our economic position if the world was dominated by command economies. Leffler also states that, “American officials had concluded as early as 1940’s that they could not live in a world dominated by totalitarian nations, even if these powers refrained from attacking the United States”. Therefore it was the “spector of communism” at home rather than the power of Russian Bolshevism abroad that fueled anti-communist rhetoric. Between the years of 1917 to 1953, seeds of the Red Scare in the 1920s and 1950’s McCarthyism were planted and rooted in the minds and hearts of the American public. Anti-communist rhetoric at home was so widespread that is was imperative for our government to take action. Political decisions and actions by the Truman administration would point any American to believe that indeed Communism was knocking on the doorstep of America. Because the American public cried out for action to be taken against communists, Truman not only appeased the American public but needed to eradicate the fear of communism. In the minds of Americans, Soviet communism was no different than Nazi totalitarianism. Actions such as the Truman Doctrine, asserted that if the United States did not intervene in supporting containment, the Soviets could have made international gains thus threatening the world of democracy. A combination of factors such as ideologies, fear, politics and economic concerns of the time fueled the foreign policy of the United States to act or perhaps react…..
Cathy Sebesta writes:
I disagree that American foreign policy during the Cold War was based on the notion that Communism was destructive to the economy of liberal capitalism. The idea that both could co-exist is not possible either. I believe the aggressive nature of the communist regimes in Russia as well China, the policy of enforced atheism, the murder and imprisonment of anyone who disagreed with the folks in power, and the stated goals of Stalin, and his successors to overpower and take over the USA from within, as well as militarily were the main forces driving American foreign policy at the time. The arms race was intended by all parties to convince us that the Soviets were a strong military power. They ruled many Slavic countries which they appropriated following WWII. I believe that though the economic differences were a big part of the continued Cold War, even more so were the ideological considerations. In my own time, my parents gave shelter to Polish refugees, who escaped Communism in their country. The family was in danger of losing their lives because of their religious beliefs, and also because the head of the family was a teacher.
In the defense of his thesis, Leffler states is that …”Thousands of Americans visited Russia in the ’30, and many of them came home with favorable accounts…” (p.21). In that section of the book he mentions that these folks thought the “…rational planning of a command economy… [was] superior to the vagaries and hardships of a private marketplace economy and a free enterprise system”. Even in this statement, Leffler reminds us that such folks ignored the obvious human toll of ‘collectivization’. Although he doesn’t describe what collectivization is; it included the USSR’s five year plans, seven year plans and collective farms, and factories. The purist idea behind it was that all would share in the work as well as the wealth. The reality was that some or most families were broken apart, and very young children were in collective nurseries, while their mothers and grandmothers [the traditional caregivers], were required to work as directed by their government. Eventually the family values, religion, and traditions were wiped away, and with it the spirit of the folks as well.
By now all the world knows the cultural as well as economic harm delivered by Communism. I believe the Americans were scared of and rejected Communism on all fronts. Economics was part of the Cold War, but I don’t believe it was the most important part for America. The American commitment to individual rights and pursuit of happiness is the antithesis of Communism.
Paul Dematteo writes:
I disagree with Leffler's thesis. I feel that most American policy makers, although conscience of the economic aspects of Communism, was not the only inspiration for their actions. This country became VERY anti-appeasement after WW2. Never again would we let an aggressor rise to the heights that Hitler rose - if/when we had the opportunity to stop it. Stalin was displaying those qualities in the late 40's and early 50's. Events such as the Berlin Blockade and subsequent Air Lift kicked off our rivalry. Discovered a short time later - the Soviet spies at Los Almos and the detonation of their bomb in '49 to Alger Hiss - the USSR was positioning themselves as adversaries. When China becomes Communist and visits Stalin after '49 - the sum of our fears are confirmed. The US foreign policy of Containment and the Domino Theory become dogma and the McCarthy decade exasperates our paranoia blurring the lines between fear and fact. Once in play the inertia of this paranoia carries US foreign policy well into the 1960's and 1970's.
Anna Fisk writes:
I disagree more than I agree with Leffler’s main thesis that Communism’s threat to our economy was the driving force behind our foreign policy in the second half of the twentieth century. Economic interests are always a factor especially when a country’s economy is based on capitalism and thrives in a free market society. That being said, there was just too many other things taking place at the same time to attribute it all to economics. The US rightfully had fear of appeasing any future powers and suspiciously watched the Soviet Union’s actions in Eastern Europe. The Cold War seemed more a series of actions and reactions rather than a well defined economic policy with the fear of the destruction of capitalism at its root. More likely, the US also worried about the ideological factors Communism might play in filling the poverty gap that was left in the wake of WWII. Perhaps Russia was only acting in her own best sell-interest and to protect herself against future aggression and we reacted as though Russia was the aggressor which in turn continually increased each other’s distrust. I think miscommunication, self-preservation, and other fears and ideals also had a role in the Cold War – it was more than economics.
I don't totally disagree...
Nancy Stewart writes:
I can’t completely disagree with Leffler’s thesis that the U.S. was concerned that communism was potentially destructive to democratic capitalism. There were many influences behind U.S. decision-making in the early years of the Cold War. However, the U.S. believed that communism would appeal to many people in Europe, and this led the U.S. to make a much deeper commitment to post-World War II Europe than it had to post-World War I Europe. In addition, the U.S. looked to the dismantling of colonial empires and to the aspirations of people in these territories as the Europeans withdrew; they assumed that some of these would inevitably find the example of the Soviet Union appealing, as it had become an industrial powerhouse in a generation and defeated Nazi Germany. The U.S. was not necessarily worried about the negatives of communism, but rather about the positives, and how these would appeal to the poor and deprived. Most importantly, the U.S. worried that democratic capitalism might not be the best way to solve the problems that existed. The assumption that communist parties everywhere would be loyal to the Soviet Union and that therefore the Soviet Union would benefit economically from these relationships, possibly shutting out the United States.
I agree...
Book #3
After reading and discussing A New Deal for the American People by Roger Biles, Smithtown teachers offer their comments on the question:
Which group of Americans benefited the most from the New Deal?
The White Working Class
Sue Ryan writes:
It seems to me that both the lower and the working classes benefited the most from FDR’s New Deal. Some of the programs that gave them financial assistance were the institution of the federal minimum wage, workman’s compensation, and unemployment insurance. For the working class, the implementation of collective bargaining units for the organized labor unions helped to improve factory conditions. Additionally, money was directed to improve roadways, parks, build school, hospitals, and other public facilities. With the construction of the hydro-electrical plant, electricity was now available to all. This helped to improve living conditions. The creation of the welfare program provided food and daily living necessities to the huge portions of people who were unemployed. The Works Progress Administration created jobs for both men and women who would otherwise have become destitute. It brought people back into the workforce. These were just some of the programs that were implemented during the New Deal that benefited the people of the lower and working classes in the early to mid 1930s.
Paul DeMatteo writes:
Of the American population effected by the Great Depression, it was the poor and unemployed white Americans that benefited the most. Although the programs that constituted the New Deal were meant to help all in need – discrimination at the local levels of distribution were prevalent. The idea of the New Deal seems to have been the most effective. It provided the psychological stability that so many Americans needed during these trying times. The whole American system could have been lost. The idea that somebody was trying resonated with so many that were in dire straits. Today we still have some of the holdovers of the New Deal programs like Social Security – Minimum Wage – FDIC Insurance – SEC – Unemployment and Workmen’s Compensation Insurance.
Christina Cone writes:
The New Deal benefited many in different ways. White, middle class Americans found some assistance in the form of mortgage assistance, farmers were targeted for help as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and women did find some enhanced roles in society. Yet it was white males who received the majority of services. Working class white men benefited the most from Roosevelt's programs. The Public Works Acts and the Civilian Conservation Corps created projects directed at employing millions of men. Assistance such as social security and unemployment benefits for working class people also came about under the Roosevelt administration. The National Recovery Administration improved working conditions for laborers and addressed hours worked and established a minimum wage. Roosevelt also supported the labor unions and provided for Collective Bargaining as part of the National Industrial Recovery Act. More support for labor came as a result of the National Labor Relations Act.
Chauncey Cone writes:
I believe that FDR was trying to work for the good of all people of the nation when he initiated his relief, recovery and reform programs during the Great Depression. However, it was the labor unions, white middle class and corporations that benefitted the most from his New Deal for America.
Roosevelt was someone who understood the politics of Washington, D.C. and he knew that if he was to ever get any of his programs passed by Congress that he would have to know that the Southern Democrats would filibuster any measure that offered anything specifically aimed at blacks. With this in mind most of the focus of his legislation was on middle America which was white.
Also at this time, there were great injustices that were taking place in American industry. Workers were not able to form unions outside of corporate run ones. The wages paid out were not enough to keep up with inflation and hours were long and taxing on families and individuals. The New Deal made it possible to form unions that allowed for collective bargaining which helped to bring about changes for all workers. On top of this, a national minimum wage and 40 hour work week were established to help bring about the end of the era of the underpaid and overworked employee.
Lastly, one cannot talk about those who benefited from the New Deal without talking about corporate America. Lobbying groups, which were financed by large corporations, were in bed with the politicians. It was these lobbyists which played a tremendous role in ensuring that policies would benefit corporations over small business.
Christy Ortiz writes:
The group that benefited the most from the New Deal was the white working/middle class. One successful program that saved their homes was the Home Owners Loan Corporation. According to Biles, FDR’s Home Owners Loan Corporation spent more than three billion dollars and refinanced more than one million homes. The HOLC basically saved the real estate market and the construction industry. The white working/middle class also benefited from new labor legislation that was created as part of the National Industrial Recovery Act. FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) Title I’s Section 7(a) guaranteed labor representation in the workplace as well as collective bargaining. This was a huge step in the process of strengthening the power of union organizing and abolishing child labor. It also led to the regulation of wages and hours with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The white working class also benefited from programs such as the Public Works Administration (PWA) which hired workers to complete over 30,000 projects; the Civilian Conservation Corps. (CCC), which hired nearly 3 million young men to plant nearly 3 billion trees and create 800 parks; and the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which was the largest employer with 38 million employees, and spent nearly $11 billion on highway and street projects. Clearly, the white working/middle class benefited by having their homes saved, new labor legislation, and new jobs.
Cathy Sebesta writes:
In the long run and for close to a century later, the poor, the unemployed, and members of unions, were the greatest long-term beneficiaries of the New Deal. In summary, the working class or “average guy/gal” were the ones who benefited.
Many of the temporary “fixes” such as WPA were unsustainable in the long run, but the idea that the “poor” needed official assistance, and that the working people, such as laborers and unskilled workers were entitled to bargain for raises and working conditions persists today. That which survived of the New Deal has in some cases become comparable to the heavy- handed big business practices seen before the unions gained power. When unionism was new and so desperately needed, big business was often guilty of dealing with the work force with an iron fist. Since that time the pendulum has slowly swung in the opposite direction, and some of our best providers of jobs have been negatively affected by the insistence of big unions taking the lion’s share, in spite of less profits for the business. Several airlines went under in past decades because the unions insisted on increases the business couldn’t sustain. Our auto industry, once the king of the hill in its field world-wide, has suffered from bargaining for ever- increasing perks and raises. Recently we saw the government taking over several auto companies, to keep the jobs from disappearing in this terrible economic time. While this looks like a possible plus, it will in the end cost the industry, and the country.
Although right from the start with the Emergency Banking Act, Roosevelt put himself in a position to increase the power of the Presidency, he did show restraint, and maintained the capitalistic principles that did bring greatness to our nation. He enraged many socialists of his time who wanted to nationalize the banking system, and grow the government. At the same time the capitalists hated FDR and thought of him as a sell-out for votes.
So much of what Roger Biles brings to the reader in his A NEW DEAL FOAR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, can be seen in the headlines of today concerning this administration, and the now-lame duck Congress sitting on the hill in D.C. Behind the scenes and with the internet bloggers, twitters, et. al, the comparisons are remarkable. It seems to give the lie to the idea that to study history is the way to avoid the tragedies of the past.
Mary Goldberg writes:
When Franklin D. Roosevelt promised a “new deal for the American people,” he gave hope to millions of Americans impoverished by the Great Depression as stated by Roger Biles in his book “A New Deal for the American People.” Yet in spite of extensive aid provided on the state and federal levels, the enormity of the economic problems throughout the country left much of the president’s pledge unfulfilled. All peoples of our society were affected from the wealthy to the working class, women, Native Americans, immigrants, African Americans, and the farmers. After much discussion of ideas and opinions from our book circle, it seemed to me that the group that benefited the most from the New Deal was unemployed white males. Programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) created public work jobs for many young men-Work Progress Administration (WPA) employed artistic, public works, and research projects-and the National Youth Administration (NYA) provided high school and college age students part-time jobs to stay in school. Even though it provided employment, it was biased and basically discriminated against the minorities. Based on the social attitudes of the times, the races were segregated, wages were unequal and discrimination became more obvious and prevalent. The depression not only increased racial tensions especially in the South, but it also cut the wounds even deeper exposing the “have” and the “have nots” in our society.
Shaun Minton writes:
Karen Van Dover writes:
As young child growing up, I often heard heated political “discussions” when my extended family gathered. These arguments often centered on the merits, or lack thereof, of the New Deal. I almost can hear them debating now, while lingering over dessert and coffee at the end of one of Mom’s sumptuous holiday meals.
Pop (Mom’s dad), who was born in 1885, had lived through what he called “the abuse inflicted on workers” by businesses in the form of unsafe working conditions, unfair labor practices, and low wages. He maintained that had it not been for the New Deal, with its minimum wage provision, worker’s compensation, and unemployment insurance, the “common working man” would be an oppressed class in America. My uncles, one of whom had planted trees with the CCC, another who built highways with the WPA, and the third who did I know not what with the PWA, all felt that Roosevelt was a god and had saved “the average American family” from certain starvation and “who knows what else?” and Mom heartily agreed. (Supposedly, only one member of the family was allowed to be in any of these programs, so I have no idea how all three uncles found employment with these government projects.)
Even Dad, a decided Conservative with anti-socialist leanings, who didn’t think that the New Deal was a good idea overall, still agreed that the FDIC, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Social Security were good ideas because they protected “the ordinary Joe” from losing his life savings in a “bad bank,” from getting ripped off by unscrupulous securities brokers, and from being destitute in old age.
The New Deal programs that were debated in our family were those that affected the majority of America’s population, people like them—white, low-to-middle-income, working-class families. I believe that my parents, uncles, and grandparents were typical of the group that benefitted most from the New Deal.
Joan Lopardo writes:
More than one group benefitted from the New Deal, but they were the backbone of this country. The poor benefitted, in addition to union people, the working class, and the middle class. Social welfare programs such as social security and unemployment insurance helped those who were struggling financially. The National Recovery Act suspended anti-trust laws, ended cutthroat competition, and protected the collective bargaining rights of the unions. Unions received additional support with federal minimum wage standards and the government awarded contracts to employers who paid minimum wage. In addition, workman’s compensation was created. The FDIC was formed to protect people’s hard-earned savings. Jobs were created for millions of Americans by the Works Progress Administration (WPA), building highways, buildings, bridges, dams, and tunnels. This included public works programs on dams in Tennessee (the TVA) and other states which created hydroelectric power. As a result, there was widespread availability of electricity to areas that were once without it, bringing technology to make life easier (i.e., the washing machine). The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), employed hundreds of thousands of young men, improving national parks, planting trees and building roads, trails, and campgrounds. This built an infrastructure enjoyed by a working class that did not have the luxury of extended or extravagant vacations. Farm subsidies provided cheap financing to cotton planters in the South, city and rural improvements resulted in highway funding and the development of suburbia, and loans to build were given. All of these programs, which were part of the New Deal, made life better for the working class of the United States, which benefitted the most.
Anna Fisk writes:
While not all of Roosevelt’s policies during the New Deal were successful, those that were successful proved most beneficial to white working and middle class males. During this difficult economic time, over 25% of Americans were without jobs and another one third was under-employed. Roosevelt, ever a politician, understood politically that by focusing on programs to help the white working class he would have the least resistance in Congress. This can be illustrated with the creation of the AAA – which subsidized land owners in farming at the expense of sharecroppers and tenant farmers which was made up largely by minorities. The benefits to the middle class were not only in terms of relief but also provided long term reforms. Some of these lasting reforms include Social Security, FDIC, collective bargaining, minimum wage and hours, welfare and unemployment insurance. The most enduring of these reforms is that government is responsible for the economy and the economic well being of its citizens. In this sense, all Americans benefitted from the New Deal.
David Cummings writes:
I would say that the white working class benefited from the New Deal more that any other group of Americans. No only were these people helped economically, but their overall quality of life improved as well. Public works programs instituted within the New Deal helped to create jobs for many white working class males. But, at the same time these projects helped to improve the lives of these people socially. The building of schools, parks, and hospitals, and the improvements made to America’s infrastructure greatly improved the daily lives of Americans as well. The federal minimum wage, workman’s compensation and unemployment insurance also helped to protect the common working man. The Home Owners Loan Corporation also helped to make home ownership a reality for many of these white working class Americans.
While other groups of Americans were effected by the policies of the New Deal, it was certainly the white working class the benefited most from these programs.
The
Larger LandownersNancy Stewart writes:
The people who benefited the most from the New Deal were not in fact the people who most needed relief. In agriculture, there was no attempt to redistribute income or change the social hierarchy; the people who received the most aid from agricultural programs were the landowners, who could put the most land out of production and who could mechanize their farms. Sharecroppers and tenant farmers were not only put out of work by this mechanization on larger farms, but because of racism, especially in the south, African-American sharecroppers and tenant farmers were overlooked by local AAA administrators. Similar things happened in industry, as codes favored big businesses over small, and large industries set the standards for any reform that took place, leaving small businesses out of the decision-making process altogether. Banking reform further led to this disparity, giving banks more control over companies in creating pre-requisites for loans; loans also typically went to big companies that had more collateral. All in all, it was larger landowners and businesspeople who most benefited from New Deal policies.
Book #2
After reading and discussing selected works on Henry Ford, Smithtown teachers offer their comments on the question:
Did Ford “invent the modern age” as he once boasted?
Yes!
Cathy Sebesta writes:
I agree with this idea, that he gave it a great start. As a result of the Model T and Ford’s assembly line approach to industry, the average man could now attain not only the necessities, but the luxuries of life. If a man’s dad was a poor farmer, he didn’t have to aspire to that limited existence. After the assembly line for auto manufacturing took hold, many other industries followed suit. The American factory produced the world’s goods, and was a way for anyone-even those of limited means, education, and talent, to earn a living wage, and live the ‘good’ life.
The idea of worker’s benefits, though brought to bear most likely by business considerations, is certainly a “modern” idea. There is no indication that such an idea existed prior to Ford’s efforts in this field of employment. This concept even afforded the disabled and uneducated to keep a good job, and retire with a pension. This pre-dates social security, and was a modern idea. By clinging to the increasingly compressed time to produce a car, profits increased as the price of each vehicle dropped. Consumerism had its beginnings here. Consumerism was and is fueled by the ability to borrow and buy, based on an income that a worker could count on. Consumerism is to this day a driving force for the economy of our country, and it began with Henry Ford, and his efforts toward producing the “Tin Lizzie".
Anna Fisk writes:
I would have to agree that Ford helped bring about the modern age. He had a vision that the “common man” should enjoy the fruits of his labor and be able to have some of the things only previously afforded by the affluent. By “Fordizing” his car many average people were able to own one. This almost single handedly brings about the rise of the middle class as the economy shifts from one of producer to consumer. Ford enabled so many things to be mass produced to such an efficiency to be affordable to so many that even the working class would be able to afford the products.
Ford also enabled the modern age to evolve by allowing the working man to have money in his pockets by paying him decently for unskilled labor. The five dollar work day along with a 9 hour workday and limited work week enabled the average man to have extra money and time to spend it. Ford focused on producing quantity at affordable prices enabling the working class to rise in their quality of life. Life’s “niceties” were no longer just for the very rich but now the common man could enjoy leisure time and become a consumer of these affordable products like the Ford Model T. Ford made this possible because of his focus on production as opposed to profits. Another industrialist in his place may not have been so laissez-faire about profits perhaps prolonging or hindering the development of the United States as a consumer economy.
He played a great role.
Karen Van Dover writes:
If he didn’t invent the “modern age” with its emphasis on consumerism, Ford certainly did more than anyone to bring it about. He helped to bring America from a production economy to a consumption economy. As Halberstam observed, “Probably no person played as great a role in this change as Henry Ford. By introducing the mass-produced Model T in 1908 and the assembly line in 1913, and by doubling his workers’ wages to $5 a day, Ford moved toward his dream of a car for every man.”
The age of consumerism dawned with the success of Ford. He set an example for the “modern age” by paying high wages and shortening the work week. It was only a matter of time before it had an impact on his competitors as well other businesses that didn’t directly compete with Ford because it set an expectation for workers that they would have more leisure time and higher pay and with these, they anticipated being able to afford the latest consumer goods and having the time to enjoy them.
Although people did not always use their increased wages to buy one of Ford’s cars, the “consumer mindset” was established and became ingrained in the American culture with the help of labor unions.
Joan Lopardo writes:
Henry Ford may not have invented the modern age, as he once boasted, but he was a major influence on American society. Halberstam commented that Ford's name "was attached to a way of life." The term "fordize" meant to standardize a product and manufacture it by mass means at a price so low that the common man could afford to buy it. Ford manufactured the Model T quickly and cheaply, which made it affordable to the working man. He was able to do this by modifying the assembly line and improving working conditions. He reduced employee turnover by paying employees $5 per day and reducing the workday, which created a leisure life. The automobile made the life of the farmer easier and provided opportunities for urban and rural families to take recreational trips. Paying employees a decent salary resulted in a consumer culture, which stimulated the economy. Ford may have helped to transform American society, but Edison’s electricity had a greater impact on the modern age, which allowed Americans to enjoy electrically powered consumer goods such as refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, and household appliances. Electricity not only made home life more pleasant, it made industrial production more efficient, including Ford’s assembly line.
Mary Goldberg writes:
Henry Ford was an instrumental agent for the “Modern Age” of the 1920’s. Perhaps he revolutionized (Fordized) the period with the innovation of the assembly line, mass production and the Model T might be more accurate. At the beginning of the 20th century, the automobile was a plaything for the rich and famous. Henry Ford was determined to build a simple, reliable and affordable, mass produced mode of production that the average American could enjoy. He did not invent the car but was one of the most influential people who changed the paradigm of the automobile for the working class and rising the standard of living in the 1920’s. Central to Ford’s ability to produce an affordable car was the development of the assembly line that increased the efficiency of manufacture thus causing the cost of the car to decrease. He did not conceive the concept but perfected it. Mass production also increased supply and consumerism. This helped to increase the workers salary to $5 a day and then later he created the 8 hour workday which promoted employee loyalty. Mass Production= Mass Consumption idea not only encouraged an immense market for his cars but it also created a competitive market for other car manufacturers like Chrysler to capitalize upon Fords vision.
Cars revolutionized American life. Suburbia grew as a result of automobiles where people now could live outside the city to raise families but could still travel back for work. People experienced more mobility and freedom by traveling, visiting or going on vacation to other places which affected the quality lives. Other industries spurred as a result such as rubber tires (Goodyear), oil industries, gas stations, highway motels etc., as a result. I do believe that Ford took pieces of various concepts and envisioned the future that would change the lives of the masses forever. Life changed with the introduction of automoblies can be compared to life after computers…revolutionary.
He deserves a little credit.
Christina Cone writes:
Ford might have proclaimed that he "invented the modern age" and I would go so far as to give him some credit. He definitely was a player in the movement toward the "modern age" but he did not invent anything new. I believe that his actions and vision helped push America into the modern age. He built off of a concept, a concept that had already been in place in other industries. The conveyor belt and the assembly line had been in use in the meatpacking industry and elsewhere. However, Ford had the ability to build off of past ideas and evolve them into something more. He supplied the idea of mass production itself that revolutionized industries. In fact, the term "Fordize" came into use and it meant to standardize a product and manufacture it by mass so that the common man can afford to buy it. By the 1920s, the United States was a consumer society and he played into that consumption economy. He knew that by focusing on manufacturing and efficiency it meant that prices could drop which would yield more purchases. Ford's ideas and efficient methods were then utilized by other industries.
Nancy Stewart writes:
I am not ready to give Ford credit for “inventing the modern age,” but I will argue that he in some ways orchestrated it and definitely accelerated it. Ford’s innovations allowed access to more and more technology for more and more people. The resulting consumer culture changed the face of how people worked, spent their (now more plentiful) leisure time, and managed their personal finances. The introduction of the automobile led to the building and maintenance of the automobile infrastructure – the roads, service stations, garages, motels, and restaurants that are a familiar part of our landscape today. In addition, it changed social patterns as the suburbs grew faster than the cities and rural isolation steadily decreased. However, I think it is difficult to say that Ford invented this; this implied that without Ford these things would not have happened. More likely, these trends would have happened eventually, as a result of one or more other influences, but maybe not as soon nor as quickly as they in fact did after the introduction of Ford’s automobile.
Probably not.
Sue Ryan writes:
Did Henry Ford invent the Modern Age? Ford definitely revolutionized the automobile industry in the early part of the 20th century with his creation of the Model-T and use of automation. The fact that he introduced the $5 work day when the average rate of pay for factory workers was about $2.34, is quite remarkable, regardless of his motives. Ford was able to create automobiles that were quick to produce and affordable for the common man. He had a hand in basically creating new ways families spent time together. Now they could travel about via a motor vehicle and spend family vacations away from their hometowns.
But…what about the other advances that were going on in the world during this era of history? White Castle opened its first fast food store in 1916, a groundbreaking idea for its time. Earle Dickson invented the Band-Aid in 1920. This was seen as a life-saving accomplishment in the field of medicine. In 1925 John Logie Baird invented the first television; this altered the way people spent their free time. Ladislo Biro invented the ball-point in 1938; a saving grace for everyone one who needed to record information. How have these inventions contributed to the modernization of our society?
If you look throughout history, there were many eras of time that could be classified as a Modern Age. Could I actually agree that Ford invented the Modern Age, probably not; but he definitely revolutionized the automobile industry and greatly impacted the lives of all Americans.
Paul DeMatteo writes:
I believe that Henry Ford did not invent the modern age as he arrogantly boasted, but I do believe that he was one of the conductors of the orchestra that was the Industrial Revolution. Ford mastered the concept of mass production. He pulled together an existing philosophy and helped innovate the technology.
Ford’s impact on American, as well as, global society, was more of an unintended side effect. His obsession with efficiency help made it possible for the consumer culture to exist. The sheer amount of products that were produced and made available across the consumer spectrum at the attractive prices that were set encouraged all people to believe that everything would be in reach one day. For those who could not wait – credit was established. With the onset of both World Wars and the production demands that were set and exceeded - peace time production flooded the market place. This made possible by Fords theories - innovations in the philosophy and execution of mass production.
Shaun Minton writes:
Henry Ford was one person in a long chain of entrepreneurs, industrialists, and other individuals who pushed the world towards a modern age. The concepts of an assembly line and worker specialization that he incorporated into his concept of mass production had existed in the meatpacking and garment industries for years. Ford certainly helped change us from a society that consumed commodities to a consumer society. His efficient methods allowed lower prices and more purchases, and were certainly adopted by other industries. Now millions used standardized products no matter what their race, class, or gender. However, I believe Fordism would not have worked without the birth of the advertisement business. As a variety of products began to be consumed in the modern market place, advertising evolved as well. A professional industry developed that made people desire standardized products. Using tactics still employed today, they convinced the average person that these products were necessary and superior to home made products. This advertising agency system that developed for Ford allowed Ford to sell his product in the 1920s. I also believe that if Ford had not developed mass production and standardization, others would have.
No.
Christy Ortiz writes:
If we’re talking about a consumer society, Ford did not invent the modern age. Even without the mass produced Model T, the 1920s were a time of consumerism because of the use of installment buying and new advertising methods. Ford contributed to the consumer society by giving society a new item to purchase, and even gave some people the means to do it with his $5 a day wage, but those things alone were not the sole motivations for consumers. Consumers were motivated by the possibility of making their lives better and keeping up with the times. If they weren’t buying the automobile, they’d be buying something else.
If we interpret the modern age as being a time when production became more mechanized, I would say that Ford didn’t invent that either. He took ideas that had already been introduced and put them together. The assembly line was already in use in the meat packing industry and Frederick Taylor was already utilizing the ideas of efficiency.
Chauncey Cone writes:
While Henry Ford was instrumental in bringing about the modern age, he is not the man who should be credited with inventing it. Ford was someone who was brilliant in taking other’s ideas and improving upon them. To this end Ford borrowed ideas already seen in practice in both the meat packing industry and the manufacturing of rifles. Both would help him to devise a cheap automobile that was limited to one model and which relied on parts that could be replaced easily and cheaply.
Ford’s genius laid in the fact that he understood that the key to industry was to make things faster and cheaper as to afford the average citizen the opportunity to own consumer goods. He is quoted as saying “mass production, precedes mass consumption, and makes it possible by reducing costs and thus permitting both greater use-convenience and price-convenience.” This is what Ford should be most remembered for, the improvement of already implemented ideas.
So did Ford invent the modern age? No. He did, however, speed up the coming of the modern age in the United States by using a business model which relied on the work of others and improving upon it.
Book #1
After reading and discussing Who Were the Progressives? by Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, Smithtown teachers offer their comments on the question:
Did Progressivism help in securing rights for women and African Americans?
Yes!
Mary Goldberg writes:
Yes, Progressivism planted the seeds for reform for both women and African Americans. Between the years of 1890-1920, reforms took the spotlight in our society due to the abuses of industrialization and urbanization. Selected groups may not have had the political power to be heard but the underground movement was making an impact that would bring about change at another time for women and African-Americans. The Woman’s City Club of Chicago, was organized in 1910 on the principle that the “citizens of the city were responsible for the welfare of the community” in which they lived. Women do not receive political power until 1920-19th amendment however, women were covertly active and gaining momentum for social causes. Women of the Progressive Era argued that “their home and all life within the city were inextricably chained to City Hall.” Municipal Housekeeping involved women to improve conditions in school, housing, public health, sanitation, police and crime, labor conditions, etc. thus creating a better life as they would their homes. This was a time when women began to validate themselves of not only being a wife and mother but as a respected and active citizen of our culture.
“Black Women became the communities’ diplomats to the white community.” During the Progressive Era, disenfranchisement removed the Black man from voting but at the same time it gave birth to a new “black woman.” In North Carolina, black women worked towards a political agenda while camouflaged beneath the white woman’s causes. “They were given a straw and they made more bricks” as they continued to bring about social changes with” tools designed to maintain the status quo.” This is not to say that white woman accepted black woman as equals but rather they bonded on the multi-issue approach to civic action. I found this essay interesting as black women began to realize that they were important change agents not only for social issues but used progressivism to reshape black life and race relations while slowly replacing racial “paternalism”.
Chauncey Cone writes:
Yes, the Progressives helped to lay the groundwork for women and African Americans, but not all the rights that were sought were secured immediately. The Progressive Movement, just like other social movements throughout history, didn’t bring about change overnight. And, like many other movements, its effects were felt beyond the years in which it spanned. However, this is not to say that Progressives did not help out women and blacks.
If we to look at the rights gained by women and African Americans during the Progressive Era, there were several areas in which they were affected. This change was only possible through the hard work and determination of both white and black women. While the two groups had similar goals for their respective races during the Progressive Era, the key difference between their goals were that "white middle-class women lobbied to obtain services from their husbands, brothers and sons and black women lobbied to obtain services for their husbands, brothers and sons."
Changes brought about Progressives that helped women and African Americans included child labor laws, minimum wage and maximum hours, as well as educational and social reforms. So yes, there was change and therefore Progressivism did help in securing rights for women and African Americans.
Karen Van Dover writes:
Yes, I think that Progressivism helped to secure rights for women and African-Americans but was not responsible for the eventual success of both groups. At the very least, the Progressive movement helped to bring some important issues before the American public and spark discussion. It takes time for reform movements to effectuate change, but the dialogue has to begin in order for change to happen. The Progressive Age certainly started the dialogue among Americans.
Abolitionists laid the groundwork regarding the granting of equal rights to African Americans, but it was not until the 1960s that the voices that championed this cause were loud enough to be heard. Black men were given the franchise before the 19th Amendment was passed, but equality for African-Americans took much longer to come about. Still, the dialogue had been started decades earlier and the ideas had time to take root. The same can be said regarding women’s rights. The Progressive Age demonstrations for women’s suffrage paved the way for the Feminist Movement that followed many years later. The suffragettes helped to make the culture receptive to the changes that brought about more rights for women down the road.
Somewhat.
Joan Lopardo writes:
Sue Ryan writes:
Progressivism may not have directly secured rights for women and African Americans, but it laid the groundwork for later advances such as the Women's Suffrage Movement and eventually the Civil Rights Movement. Prior to this period in history, the majority of women were expected to devote their time to taking care of their families and homes. In the late 1800s/early 1900s, women became more visible in the workforce, when opportunities increased, particularly in the garment industry and the educational field. Women were successful in improving working conditions both at home and in the work place.
African American women, adopting the role of social workers, were ultimately successful in improving the health and education of the young African American children, hence making better lives for their spouses and future generations. This also helped to reshape race relations. Without the initiative of the African American women during the progressive Era, perhaps women’s rights in general would have gone unchanged for years to come.
Paul DeMatteo
writes: In the long evolution that has
become known as the Progressive Era many things changed in the American
social fabric. The rights of women and African Americans were effected
in the long run. Change to these particular demographics may not have
happened with swiftness and evenhandedness that many would have liked,
BUT change happened none the less. The following are thought of as the
“Progressive” Amendments to the US Constitution: 16th – Income Tax 17th – Popular
Election of Senators 18th – Prohibition of
Alcohol 19th – Women’s
Suffrage Although the 14th and
15th Amendments are commonly referred to as the
Reconstruction Era – they are in spirit – Progressive. They allowed
reformers and crusaders to call attention to- reinforce and reform
(when necessary) the laws and attitudes of the American public.
Through an extended period of
agitations by the various agendas put forth from the sundry Progressive
groups change was achieved. Some small, others took huge leaps, it is
was something to build on and mold. Time is the factor. Only over time
can people truly except change.
Anna Fisk writes:
The progressive Era was a time of many reforms in America. Did this movement help secure rights for women and African Americans? I think they helped, but some of the reforms seemed more like incidental results of other bigger reform movements. In the big picture, the women’s movement was entangled with other political issues existing at the time such as Prohibition, social changes, and urban reforms. In these areas women were often able to effect change even before they were able to secure the vote for themselves.
While women and African Americans may have had difficulty securing rights for themselves, they were able to affect reform and change in their immediate environments. Women, both white and African American, were successful at manipulating the system and to bring about these changes that impacted their daily lives. Their ability to work side by side to accomplish shared goals made women “leaders in Progressive reform and that gender mattered in the diagnosis and solution of problems.” In other words they were agents of change and their progressivism helped in securing rights for others if not for themselves.
Not really.
Nancy Stewart writes:
To some degree it would seem that Progressivism helped in securing rights for women and African-Americans, but I am not sure if it is the tenets of Progressivism themselves, or the increasing public role that the Progressive Era allowed these groups that led to the expansion of their rights down the road. The fact remains that throughout the Progressive Era, whether we begin it in 1900 or 1890 or even before that, until 1920, women did not have the right to vote, and even after gaining suffrage, many women simply did not vote for various reasons and therefore continued not to be part of the political process. African American men had the right to vote in theory but not in practice prior to 1920; in fact, as Gilmore points out in her introduction to her own article, “The white Democratic leaders who disfranchised African Americans called themselves Progressives and thought that disfranchisement was a Progressive solution to elevate the nature of the electorate.” And African American women found themselves doubly hindered. However, we know that women were particularly active participants in Progressive Era reforms, demonstrated for example in Maureen A. Flanagan’s article on the City Club and Women’s City Club of Chicago. We see upper-middle-class white married women, and unmarried professional women, agitating for municipal reforms including improved sanitation and education. Although African American men were disfranchised, African American women could participate in many reform movements, linked to white women in their common situation as wives and mothers. However, although these groups were able to agitate for reforms during the Progressive period, whether or not the era itself contributed to the later gains of the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is unclear.
Cathy Sebesta writes:
Undoubtedly some of the goals and practices of Progressives did play a role in the both groups securing the rights initially given them in the Constitution of our country.
The human spirit longs for the freedom that our Constitution is intended to guarantee. We are born with the will and desire for freedom. The letters from Abigail Adams to her husband give proof that women wanted the rights all people should have. The role of the African American was a changing one, and the first 20 in our country arrived as indentured servants. Some of that original group became wealthy, one even served as a member of the House of Burgesses in the 1600’s! If you recall, in an effort to stop slavery, several of the original states refused to sign on to the “law of the land” until a provision was included banning slave sales 20 years hence, (in D.C.) Churches and Abolitionists North and South fought for the end of slavery and the protection of the rights of African Americans. All of these efforts pre-date Progressives. I just can’t give them much credit in the end.
McCormick writes: “while citizens experienced business corruption at the local level, they also realized the federal government must be expanded, primarily through the presidency and a new administrative regulatory structure.” So what has changed? Progressives and others worked hard to change things. As a group, they probably had pure motives, but some of what they espoused then and now, are contrary to much of our history. As for business being in bed with politics/government; that is an on-going story. The names of the businesses change with the changing administrations right up to and including today.
Christy Ortiz writes:
Although women and African-Americans were active during the Progressive Movement, I do not believe the movement helped them gain rights. Rather than directly help them gain rights, the Progressive Movement just gave the two groups the opportunity to speak out and work toward equality. Maureen Flanagan explains to us how in Chicago, women formed the Woman’s City Club and fought for changes in education as well as municipal improvements. Women believed that the city was the larger home and used grass roots activities to improve conditions. Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore explains how African-American women became spokespeople for and motivators of black citizens. These women formed mothers' clubs, organized community clean up days, built playgrounds, and worked for public health.
Despite these contributions, women and African-Americans didn’t see much of a change in their status. Both groups were still second class citizens. While it’s true that women gained the right to vote with the 19th Amendment, at the end of the Progressive Era, their fight for this right began way before the Progressive Era and was not a direct result of the Progressives. Some African-American women may have been active during the Progressive Movement, but the racism and segregation that existed long before the Progressive Movement was still overshadowing any progress that was being made.
Shaun Minton writes:
The 19th Amendment is considered a Progressive amendment, so certainly the Progressive era affected the struggle for the rights of women and African Americans, but the question is to what degree? Many organizations of the time attempted to solve the problems of urbanization and industrialization and these reformers had at least a tangential effect on the civil rights of women and African Americans. Many progressives, however, were elites attempting to control a society they saw spiraling dangerously out of control. They had no intention of revolutionizing society and granting more rights to disenfranchised groups. In fact, many progressives were Democrats who thought disenfranchisement of African Americans was something to be perused. Female Progressives made a argument racist argument for the 19th Amendment; they argued that female whites deserved suffrage more than blacks who already had it. I do think the way that progressives helped later civil rights movements was by providing a format for organization. They formed clubs and advocacy groups which had platforms, got involved in communities, and gathered data. Black women and white women worked together in a similar fashion to NOW decades later. The very fact that women were in the public sphere participating in reform movements was revolutionary.
For Women, but not African-Americans.
Christina Cone writes:
After reading the essays in the book, I think this question can be answered by stating that the Progressive movement did help in securing rights for women but it did not address the needs and rights of African Americans. Many women were active participants in the Progressive movement and women did finally get the right to vote during this time period. However, African Americans were not only excluded from the progressive movement but it was arguably quite a bad time period for them overall. In fact, one of the essays discusses how those who fought for voting literacy tests and poll taxes as a means to disenfranchise African Americans often called themselves progressives. This was also when Plessy v. Ferguson made segregation a formal policy. Add to that the number of lynchings and general racist feelings that dominated society and it is easy to conclude that Progressivism did not help secure rights for African Americans.