Progressivism Research and Debate - Mr. E's Forum: 2006-2007

Date: Feb 9, 2007

RE: Progressivism Research and Debate

Date: Feb 9, 2007

1) Primary Source Document
If the anti-trust people really grasped the full meaning of what they said, and if they really had the power or the courage to do what they propose, they would be engaged in one of the most destructive agitations that America has known. They would be breaking up the beginning of collective organization, thwarting the possibility of cooperation, and insisting upon submitting industry to the wasteful, the planless scramble of little profiteers.

Walter Lippman, 1914

Walter Lippman knew that the anti-trust people had not been successful in destroying the trusts because he claims that IF they had the power or courage to do what they proposed, then they would really be able to make a difference, but they had not been able to pull through with their ideas of destroying the trusts. He even stated that they would be breaking up the beginning of collective organization, not that they were.

2) The Causes of the Great Depression
During the Progressive Era people were not successful in destroying trusts. If they had been successful then the Great Depression would have not occurred because there would have been more competition. Everything would not have been connected to one huge corporation. Therefore, when that one big business fell, it affected mostly everyone. The crash of the stock market in 1929 had such a huge effect on the people who were involved in these big businesses due to the fact that not all the trusts were destroyed. When businesses lost money in the crash they lost large lump sums which caused the Depression and made it as extreme as it was. People who invested their money into these huge businesses lost everything due to the fact that they invested all their money into one stock because other stocks weren’t available.

3) Sherman Antitrust Act The act provided that “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations , shall be deemed guilty of a felony”. But this did not pull through. Roosevelt used the Act extensively in his antitrust campaign, but when he actually came into office he did not use it. The Sherman Antitrust Act did not improve the competition or benefit consumers. Alan Greenspan wrote an essay called “Antitrust” which puts down the Sherman Antitrust Act. He referred to it as a stifling innovation and said it harmed society. In his essay he stated, “No one will ever know what new products, processes, machines, and cost-saving mergers failed to come into existence, killed by the Sherman Act before they were born. No one can ever compute the price that all of us have paid for that Act which, by inducing less effective use of capital, has kept our standard of living lower than would otherwise have been possible.” For the consequences of going against the act, some violations were not even prosecuted criminally as it explained in the act. The Act didn’t stop existsing monopolies but instead helped benfit them. The Act put a stop to new uprising monopolies which in return gave the power that they would have had back to the existing monopolies. This caused already large monopolies to grow.

4) Federal Reserve Act 1913

Thomas Jefferson believed that if a banking system with the power of the Federal Reserve Bank was instituted, the end result would create a national debt crisis.

"A fiat monetary system allows power and influence to fall into the hands of those who control the creation of new money, and to those who get to use the money or credit early in its circulation. The insidious and eventual cost falls on unidentified victims who are usually oblivious to the cause of their plight. This system of legalized plunder (though not constitutional) allows one group to benefit at the expense of another. An actual transfer of wealth goes from the poor and the middle class to those in privileged financial positions." —Congressman Ron Paul
This was proven during the Great Depression when stocks became invalid, the poor became poorer, and only those with money were able to monopolize during this crisis.

5) Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission

Mr. E’s progressive packet on the Progressive Era states, "The Clayton Act bill prohibited a number of unfair trading practices, outlawed the interlocking directorate, and made it illegal for corporations to purchase stock in other corporations if doing so tended to reduce competition. It was not clear how the government would enforce these provisions and ensure the competition that Wilson’s New Freedom doctrine called for. Labor leaders protested that the bill had no provision exempting labor organizations from persecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act". "The Federal Trade Commission and the Clayton Act did not end monopoly, and the courts in the next two decades did not increase the government’s power to regulate business."

It directly states that the Federal Trade Commission and the Clayton Act did not end monopoly or increase the government’s power to regulate business, therefor claiming that they were unsuccessful in destroying the trusts and checking the power of the advancing huge businesses.

(The rest of our group's stuff will be all posted together later when they post their 5 things, but these are mine for now)

Date: Feb 9, 2007

The Progressive Movement Hindered the Labor Movement:

The progressive reformers did nothing to help with the strike in Ludlow, Colorado or intervene and the strike ended in the killing of twenty people in the Ludlow Massacre.

"Aroused by the murder of one of their organizers, they went on strike against low pay, dangerous conditions, and feudal domination of their lives in towns completely controlled by the mining companies. ...”
From Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/us/sp000937.txt

Events like this one show that the Progressive reformers did not do enough to accomplish what they had set out to do for workers-making safer conditions, higher pay, etc. If they had done what they said they would do for workers then events like the Ludlow Massacre would not have happened because the workers would not have had to go on strike.

Date: Feb 9, 2007

Amanda wrote:

Alex Z. wrote:

Amanda wrote:

Progressive movement hindered the labor movement:

The fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory was due to poor safety standards that reformers had failed to address in the garment industry. Reformers did not do enough for the health and safety of workers. “The conditions of the factory were typical of the time. Flammable textiles were stored throughout the factory, smoking was common, illumination was provided by open gas lighting, and there were no fire extinguishers. […] The ninth floor had only two doors leading out. One stairwell was already filling with smoke and flames by the time the seamstresses realized the building was ablaze. The other door had been locked, ostensibly to prevent workers from stealing materials or taking breaks and to keep out union organizers. […]The death toll was 146.”
-Wikipedia

It helped the labor movement
First off, the debate was over whether the Progressive movement helped or hindered the labor movement, not over how efficient (or inefficient) those involved were. This may affect other arguments as well…

Well Alex, if the people involved in the progressive movement weren't efficient enough then they would not have been able to accomplish their goals in the labor movement, which were higher wages, shorter working days, and safer conditions for workers. So the efficiency of the people involved in the Progressive movement does have an effect on whether the Progressive movement helped or hindered labor movement.

It helped the labor movement

I'll acknowledge what I think you meant by that, but I must say I still flatly disagree with what you just said. A measure of how much or how little a movement helped does not have anything to do with whether or not the movement had a negative effect.
Mathematically speaking: X is between zero and ten ( 0<X<10 ) , therefore X cannot equal zero, nor can it equal any negative number.

However, if you mean to say that by not meeting intended goals, then you should consider the gains made by "failures" (in terms of national publicity, trial and error, etc.) as well as the successful aspects of the Progressive movement.

Date: Feb 9, 2007

Tom wrote:

The Federal Trade Commission was designed to enforce the Clayton Act and regulate business’s to protect consumers.

Tom, you stated that the Federal Trade Commission was designed to enforce the Clayton Act and regulate businesses to protect consumers, but just because that is what it was set up to do doesn't mean that it was successful. It actually was unnsuccessful in ending monpolies and for many decades did not even increase the government's power to regulate business. (from the packet mr e gave us)

Date: Feb 9, 2007

sarah wrote:

13. Sherman Antitrust Act: broke up an existing railroad trust, and set up laws that prohibited the formation of future trusts

4. Clayton Antitrust Act: strengthened the provisions of the SAA, contained a clause that kept unions from being prosecuted as trusts

Sarah,
The Sherman Antitrust Act may have broken up an existing railroad trust but it failed in the end and was not successful in the long run. The Act didn’t stop existsing monopolies but instead helped benfit them. The Act put a stop to new uprising monopolies which in return gave the power that they would have had back to the existing monopolies. This caused already large monopolies to grow. So the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act seemed like they would help but in reality actually in a way worsened the situation at hand.

Also, in Mr e's packet that he gave us the other day it stated that the Clayton Act did not end monopoly and that for a couple decades the courts didn't even increase government's power to regulate business. The same was stated for the Federal Trade Commission.

Date: Feb 9, 2007

sarah wrote:

4. Clayton Antitrust Act: strengthened the provisions of the SAA, contained a clause that kept unions from being prosecuted as trusts

One more thing about the Clayton Act is that you stated that it contained a clause that kept unions from being prosecuted as trusts, but Section 6 of the Act exempts labor unions. (Quoting from Wikipeida): "Therefore, boycotts, peaceful strikes, and peaceful picketing are not regulated by this statute. Injunctions could be used to settle labor disputes only when property damage was threatened."

Date: Feb 9, 2007

Although it wasn't labelled, my talk about publicity (especially from the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire) and child labor were my point #4.

sorry about forgetting that, all

Date: Feb 9, 2007

Alex Z. wrote:

Although it wasn't labelled, my talk about publicity (especially from the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire) and child labor were my point #4.

sorry about forgetting that, all

labeled*

Date: Feb 9, 2007

L. gonzalez wrote:

My last reason for explaining why the Progressive Era hindered the labor movement was: 5.) In document A of the documents, a businessman is explained as a bad citizen. This is probably because people who were in business were much better off and would take advantage of that when it came to those who were socially under them. It goes on to explain how they are sort of a reason of the corruption going on in the world.

It helped the labor movement

5.

I agree with what you said.
/
This sad truth about human nature - that if given the opportunity to pursue one’s dreams a person will walk over others with surprising ease - is what makes the Progressive movement so amazing. Here you had middle-class people helping those with less economic stability, all the while marching against the immensely wealthy upper-class.

Perhaps the Progressives did not always achieve their goals, but the fact that they were looking for ways to improve their own society and protect their own people is noble in and of itself.

¿?

Date: Feb 9, 2007

Professional Administrators – Progressives worked to make city governments be run by trained, professional administrators. They worked under the guidelines of a elected city-council. They ran the day-to-day events of the city. This was called the city manager system. Centralization of decision-making process – Progressives everywhere sought to make governments on every level more rational in there decision making.Governments were changed and reorganized to stop overlapping authorities of departments and to reduce the number of officials. City governments were changed to increase the power of the city-councils and reduce the power of wards. Governments started to set a budget to be spent yearly instead of spending money randomly. Prohibition laws – The progressives took very strong stands on prohibition, the banning of alcohol. They claimed the drinking of alcohol limited mankind's potential for great things. They were so successful that they actually got Congress and 36 states to pass the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1919. Antitrust Laws – Progressives argued that trusts stopped competition by monopolizing. With no competition they could charge whatever they chose and halt progress and improvement. They argued that the federal government should intervene to break up trusts into smaller companies and restore compertition. However that should be the end of the governments involvement and they should allow the free market system to take over. Progressives passed the Sherman Antitrust Act through Congress almost unanimously. The Act makes it illegal to try to restrain trade, or to form a monopoly. It is still a law today. President Theodore Rosevelt sued 45 companies and President William H. Taft sued 75, all using this act as a weapon. One of the biggest use of the law was the Supreme Court ruling against the Standard Oil Company, owned by John D. Rockefeller. The Supreme Court ruled against the Company saying tha t it had been monopolizing and breaking the Serman Antitrust Act. It forced the company to break into three dozen separate companies. Most of these companies would survive to today and become such companies as Exxon, Mobile, Amoco, and Chevron. Other monopolies were broken up in tobacco, meatpacking, and bathtub fixtures. Women’s Rights – During the Progressive movement the women in the United States gained things that they had only ever dreamed about. During this time period the women working in the United States increased from 2.6 million to 7.8 million. They gained the right to own property, control their earnings, and, in the case of divorce, take custody of their children. By 1896 women gained the right to vote in Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah. In 1919, towards the end of the Progressive movement, women finally gained the right to vote throughout the country with the adoption of the thirteenth amendment. This is an enormous accomplishment since not all women even wanted any of these rights. Some women thought that women would “grow beards” if they took place in politics or voted. By the turn of the century women’s groups, through their new rights, worked to promote better schools, the regulation of child labor, suffrage, putting women in unions and the prohibition of liquor.

Date: Feb 9, 2007

Sry that last one tured out weird, this is the five though I'm not done finding evidence

Professional Administrators – Progressives worked to make city governments be run by trained, professional administrators. They worked under the guidelines of a elected city-council. They ran the day-to-day events of the city. This was called the city manager system. Centralization of decision-making process – Progressives everywhere sought to make governments on every level more rational in there decision making.Governments were changed and reorganized to stop overlapping authorities of departments and to reduce the number of officials. City governments were changed to increase the power of the city-councils and reduce the power of wards. Governments started to set a budget to be spent yearly instead of spending money randomly. Prohibition laws – The progressives took very strong stands on prohibition, the banning of alcohol. They claimed the drinking of alcohol limited mankind's potential for great things. They were so successful that they actually got Congress and 36 states to pass the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1919. Antitrust Laws – Progressives argued that trusts stopped competition by monopolizing. With no competition they could charge whatever they chose and halt progress and improvement. They argued that the federal government should intervene to break up trusts into smaller companies and restore compertition. However that should be the end of the governments involvement and they should allow the free market system to take over. Progressives passed the Sherman Antitrust Act through Congress almost unanimously. The Act makes it illegal to try to restrain trade, or to form a monopoly. It is still a law today. President Theodore Rosevelt sued 45 companies and President William H. Taft sued 75, all using this act as a weapon. One of the biggest use of the law was the Supreme Court ruling against the Standard Oil Company, owned by John D. Rockefeller. The Supreme Court ruled against the Company saying tha t it had been monopolizing and breaking the Serman Antitrust Act. It forced the company to break into three dozen separate companies. Most of these companies would survive to today and become such companies as Exxon, Mobile, Amoco, and Chevron. Other monopolies were broken up in tobacco, meatpacking, and bathtub fixtures. Women’s Rights – During the Progressive movement the women in the United States gained things that they had only ever dreamed about. During this time period the women working in the United States increased from 2.6 million to 7.8 million. They gained the right to own property, control their earnings, and, in the case of divorce, take custody of their children. By 1896 women gained the right to vote in Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah. In 1919, towards the end of the Progressive movement, women finally gained the right to vote throughout the country with the adoption of the thirteenth amendment. This is an enormous accomplishment since not all women even wanted any of these rights. Some women thought that women would “grow beards” if they took place in politics or voted. By the turn of the century women’s groups, through their new rights, worked to promote better schools, the regulation of child labor, suffrage, putting women in unions and the prohibition of liquor.

Date: Feb 9, 2007

I'm really sorry about this; I don't know why it is one giant paragraph. I also changed by first topic.

Secret Ballots – before the Progressive era all voting was a public statement. When anyone voted the vote was recorded along with the name of the voter and the person that they voted for. Anyone at anytime could see who someone had voted for. This concept seems alien to many Americans today yet it still would be like this without the Progressives. Progressives argued that the public viewings made for voter intimidation. It was entirely legal and acceptable for an employer to tell his employees that they must vote for someone or be fired. Due to this laws were passed that made voting a secret system that could not be traced to individual people and only the results were known by anyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#Environmentalism

Centralization of decision-making process – Progressives everywhere sought to make governments on every level more rational in there decision making.Governments were changed and reorganized to stop overlapping authorities of departments and to reduce the number of officials. City governments were changed to increase the power of the city-councils and reduce the power of wards. Governments started to set a budget to be spent yearly instead of spending money randomly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#Environmentalism Prohibition laws – The progressives took very strong stands on prohibition, the banning of alcohol. They claimed the drinking of alcohol limited mankind's potential for great things. They were so successful that they actually got Congress and 36 states to pass the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1919. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#Environmentalism Antitrust Laws – Progressives argued that trusts stopped competition by monopolizing. With no competition they could charge whatever they chose and halt progress and improvement. They argued that the federal government should intervene to break up trusts into smaller companies and restore compertition. However that should be the end of the governments involvement and they should allow the free market system to take over. Progressives passed the Sherman Antitrust Act through Congress almost unanimously. The Act makes it illegal to try to restrain trade, or to form a monopoly. It is still a law today. President Theodore Rosevelt sued 45 companies and President William H. Taft sued 75, all using this act as a weapon. One of the biggest use of the law was the Supreme Court ruling against the Standard Oil Company, owned by John D. Rockefeller. The Supreme Court ruled against the Company saying tha t it had been monopolizing and breaking the Serman Antitrust Act. It forced the company to break into three dozen separate companies. Most of these companies would survive to today and become such companies as Exxon, Mobile, Amoco, and Chevron. Other monopolies were broken up in tobacco, meatpacking, and bathtub fixtures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust#History_of_antitrust_in_the_United_States Women’s Rights – During the Progressive movement the women in the United States gained things that they had only ever dreamed about. During this time period the women working in the United States increased from 2.6 million to 7.8 million. They gained the right to own property, control their earnings, and, in the case of divorce, take custody of their children. By 1896 women gained the right to vote in Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah. In 1919, towards the end of the Progressive movement, women finally gained the right to vote throughout the country with the adoption of the thirteenth amendment. This is an enormous accomplishment since not all women even wanted any of these rights. Some women thought that women would “grow beards” if they took place in politics or voted. By the turn of the century women’s groups, through their new rights, worked to promote better schools, the regulation of child labor, suffrage, putting women in unions and the prohibition of liquor. http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/progress/suffrage/suffrage.html

Date: Feb 10, 2007

CRYSTAL wrote:

1)            Progressives sought to restore economic competition, make government more efficient, and stem the tide of socialism. To what extent were progressives successful in achieving these goals?

·        Progressives were unsuccessful in achieving goals to make government more efficient in which politics and the way of running the government were more corrupt.
“The dull, purblind folly of the very rich men; their greed and arrogance...and the corruption in business and politics, have tended to produce a very unhealthy condition of excitement and irritation in the popular mind, which shows itself in the great increase in the socialistic propaganda.” by Theodore Roosevelt, stating that greed and arrogance of rich men and corruption of business and politics were influential to the people.

·         Early in the century, people were not successful in approaching the government with proposals to improve the lot of factory workers, farmers, and small businessmen. Most significantly at the local and state levels of government, lawmakers were controlled by political machines and special interest groups. Greed, corruption, and bribery were common among many politicians.
A New York Times editorial of July 3, 1911, complained that "Respectable and well-meaning men all over the State and especially in this city, are going about saying: 'What is the use? You only replace one lot of rascals by another, generally worse."' Across the country in California, the Southern Pacific Railroad controlled the state legislature and dictated how the state should be run. This was always to the benefit of the railroad. In many states at this time, railroads and other large corporations saw to it that legislatures did nothing to interfere with their profits, power and privilege.

to be continued…

http://www.crf-usa.org/election_central/election_progressive.htm

Crystal, just a few things to comment about. 1) Nowhere in this do you once prove that the Progressives were even a tiny bit unsuccessful. You state how the government was corrupt; yes it was corrupt, which is why the progressives tried to change it. Theodore Roosevelt also happened to be a huge Progressive. Your quote simply says that he thought that there was corruption, you never said WHEN he said it - he was many things before he became president and therefore could have easily said it before the progressive movement - you also never said in what context he said it in - was he even talking about progressivism or was the talking to a dear old friend about a man he met, for example.
2) The lives of factory workers most certainly DID change for the better early in the century - with the enactment of child labor laws, the rise of settlement housing, many more unions now coming about, and the enactment of prohibition laws to stop people from wasting away their money, - how could their lives have not changed for the better?
3) Yes 'greed, corruption, and bribery were common among many politicians', your absolutely right. That is why Progressives tried and succeeded in many places in stopping and preventing this. Therefore making the government more efficient in the way it is run.
4) Railroads had significant power. They monopolized the economy since it was most farmers only way to bring their “pigs to market”, as it was. Thus the Progressives passed antitrust laws such as the Sherman Antitrust Act to stop the railroads and other such monopolizing companies from abusing their great influence over the country. After this time period railroads would never again see such profits as they saw at the time before the Progressive era.

Date: Feb 10, 2007

1) Progressives sought to restore economic competition, make government more efficient, and stem the tide of socialism. To what extent were progressives successful in achieving these goals?

Progressives were unsuccessful in restoring economic competition, making government more efficient, and stemming the tide of socialism.

1] _"The effort to restore competition as it was sixty years ago, and to trust for justice solely to this proposed restoration of competition, is just as foolish as if we should go back to the flintlocks of Washington's continentals as a substitute for modern weapons of precision....Our purpose should be, not to strangle business as an incident of strangling combinations, but to regulate big corporations in a thoroughgoing and effective fashion, so as to help legitimate business as an incident to thoroughly and completely safeguarding the interests of the people as a whole."_Theodore Roosevelt

According to Roosevelt, restoring competition would be pointless, because business should not be strangled, but it should be regulated in large corporations.

2] Eugene V. Debs was a socialist who ran for president as a member of the Social Democratic Party. "Debs saw the working class as the one class to organize, educate, and emancipate itself by itself." (Wiki quote)

3] The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was the first U.S federal government action to limit monopolies. For quite some time, this Act went unenforced. It is stated that it was intended to prevent arrangements increasing the cost of goods to consumers. It also attempts to prevent the raising of prices by restriction of trade. There is no proof of this actually coming into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Anti-trust_Act, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us31.cfm

yeah i still dont know exactly what im doing. so this is what i got.

Date: Feb 10, 2007

3) Between 1880 and 1925 American society remained true to its core values of liberty, equality and opportunity regarding immigration issues. Assess the validity of this statement.

It remained true:

1. “Education was free. That subject my father had written about repeatedly, as comprising his chief hope for us children, the essence of American opportunity, the treasure that no thief could touch, nor even misfortune or poverty. It was the one thing that he was able to promise us when he sent for us; surer, safer, than bread or shelter.”

This is from a passage in “The Promised Land” by Mary Antin; it is an account from a Jewish immigrant that arrived in 1894. The immigrant describes how America offered educational opportunity. Immigrants were able to attend school in America, which is keeping the value of opportunity true for immigrants. In the journal "American Quarterly," Timothy L. Smith points out that in Duluth, Minnesota, 1908, 10% of 460 teachers in the kindergarten and elementary grades were immigrants. This demonstrates that immigrants were given the opportunity to be educated because in order to be a teacher, one would need to be educated.

2. In “Songs of Mexican Migration” by Paul S. Taylor, the song states, “Don't condemn me For leaving my country, Poverty and necessity Are at fault.” Immigrants came to America to better their lives. In their home countries, most of the immigrants were poor, as this song indicates as a reason for them coming to America; to have more economic opportunity. The song then goes on to say, “I go to the United States to seek to earn a living.” This also supports that this immigrant went to the United States to become wealthier than he was in his home country. Along with the Mexicans, were the Italians, who also came to America seeking a better lifestyle. Judy Baehr, staff writer for “The Daily Journal,” points out that by 1890, half of the men who worked on the railroad between Philadelphia and New York were Italian immigrants. They were able to acquire the same types of jobs as American unskilled laborers.

3. In a poem written by Emma Lazarus in 1883, she describes the Statue of Liberty as follows:

“From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command”She then goes on to say:"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This description indicates that America is welcoming immigrants. The Statue of Liberty in the United States, is also for immigrants. Lazarus is saying that America welcomes immigrants and treats then as though they belong. America will allow the immigrants to be free once they were in America, keeping its core values of liberty in American society.

4. W. F. Warde in “John Dewey’s Theories of Education,” stated that: “The immigrants, working and middle classes regarded education, not as an adornment or a passport to aristocratic culture, but as indispensable equipment to earn a better living and rise in the social scale. They especially valued those subjects which were conducive to success in business.” Immigrants wanted to come to America to get and education to better their lives. Private business colleges were set up in the nineteenth century, where immigrants with previous education could attend. These business colleges taught, the mathematics, bookkeeping, and knowledge of English needed to succeed in the business field. This supports that American society remained true to its core values of equality and opportunity.

5. Susan Jacoby points out that, “New York's school system accommodated the largest and most diverse group of immigrant children between 1880 and 1924, when Congress passed severely restrictive immigration laws that were to remain substantially unchanged for the next four decades. The city's total school enrollment rose to nearly 800,000 between 1885 and 1900.” Immigration caused the number of children in a lot of elementary schools to double. The children were allowed to attend schools like native-born children were. This demonstrates the equality and opportunity given to immigrant children in the United States.

Mr. E, I didn't realize till last night that me and Julia have the same evidence with the Statue of Liberty. But I struggled with finding a fifth piece of supporting evidence for my topic, so this is all I have.

Date: Feb 10, 2007

One of the principle aims of the Progressive Era was to check the advancing power of big business. How successful were they in achieving their goal by 1915?

1. One of the problems the Progressives wanted to fix was increasing power of big business. They were successful because of the many acts they passed to stop it from rising and making businesses responsible for the quality of their products. One of the acts that the Progressives passed was the Sherman Anti-trust act. This act held businesses accountable for their actions. It placed punishments on illegal contracts and dominating trade and commerce that weren’t there before. Corporations paid up to $10 million, individuals paid 350,000, and in addition there was jail time for up to 3 years. This stopped tycoons from pushing out competitors.

Site: DBQ

2. The Progressives succeeded in their goal of trying to fix the economy by limiting the power of big businesses through the Federal Trade commission Act. With this act the Progressives stopped unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce. The act made the Federal Trade Commission to catch anyone who violated the rules and regulations of the act.

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/ftca.htm

3.The Progressives were successful in limiting the power of big businesses through the establishment of the Industrial commission. It investigated railroad pricing policies, industrial concentration, and the impact of immigrants on labor markets. It also made recommendations to Congress. Before the establishment of the Commission, Progressives would get city councils, a state legislature, or the federal government to appoint commissions to do studies. Their findings were then published so that the public could know what was going on in factories. Investigative commissions to helped Progressives get their message across to both the government and the public.

Site: The American People (packet)

4. The Progressives regulated the quality of the meat that was being produced through the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. This Act was a result of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. It was a study on Chicago meat packing industries. Charles P. Neill and James Bronson Reynolds were sent to inspect the factories in Chicago and were disgusted. After Roosevelt received the report he set out to reform the meat packing industry.

Some of the new rules of the Meat Inspection Act were that the livestock had to be inspected before slaughter and sanitary standards had to be set in slaughter houses. With this act Progressives yet again reached their goal of limiting the power of big businesses.

Site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

5.The Pure Food and Drugs Act was passed in 1906. It prevented the manufacture, sale, or transportation of misbranded or poisonous foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors. Some of the authors that were responsible for this act were Sinclair Upton, Samuel Hopkins and a social activist named Florence Kelly. Site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst203/documents/pure.html

All these acts are just some of the examples that show that the Progressives were successful in limiting the power of big businesses.

Date: Feb 12, 2007

Jillian wrote:

3) Between 1880 and 1925 American society remained true to its core values of liberty, equality and opportunity regarding immigration issues. Assess the validity of this statement. It did not remain true.

3) The progressive Party platform in 1912 explains its views on discrimination on sex and political equality. This platform states, “The Progressive party, believing that no people can justly claim to be a true democracy which denies equal political rights on account of sex, pledges itself to the task of securing equal suffrage to men and women alike.” The only problem with this is hat the Progressive party did not win the election, which meant that these views on society were not carried out.

5)Between 1910 and 1930, African Americans began to move from the south to the north because of job opportunities. Some motivations for blacks to leave the soth were deteriorating race relationships and racial tension and discrimination. The National Urban League was formed in 1911 with their motto being, “No Alms but Opportunity.” This motto reflects the battle towards economic advancement and opportunity.

For your third statement, how does that support that American society didn't remain true to it's core values reguarding the immigrants?...the statement is talking about equality of the sexes.

And for your fifth argument, African Americans were already in America. They weren't coming over from Africa for the job opportunities, so how does this support your position?

Date: Feb 12, 2007

Kristen, Alex, and Curt wrote:

It is true that there were many corrupt officials who went to jail but there were some who actually used the money taken to actually help out the community. James Curley was an official who indeed took money from the city but used the money to help imporve living conditions and used the money to start a movement to try and improve working conditions for the Irish community.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes yes that is true. But it all comes down to one important fact.... James Curley took the money instead of earning it. Even though James Curley's intensions where to help the Irish community, stealing makes him a corrupt leader. This leads us to wonder whether or not Curley continued to steal money from the city and keep it for himself.
Now, I was wondering earlier that 'even though it is a crime to steal money or anything for that matter, who really cares if the outcome is beneficial?' -- there is a problem with that theory. The main issue with Political Machines like James Curley is that he was stealing money from the city to help only one specific group... the Irish. What happens to all the other people living in that city? What about the Germans or the Portuguese or whatever group of people that needs help. Not everyone is equally benefitted from the money that James Curely stealed. James Curely left a whole other group of people hanging.

But great arguement by the way.

Date: Feb 12, 2007

kathryn wrote:

Kristen, Alex, and Curt wrote:

It is true that there were many corrupt officials who went to jail but there were some who actually used the money taken to actually help out the community. James Curley was an official who indeed took money from the city but used the money to help imporve living conditions and used the money to start a movement to try and improve working conditions for the Irish community.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes yes that is true. But it all comes down to one important fact.... James Curley took the money instead of earning it. Even though James Curley's intensions where to help the Irish community, stealing makes him a corrupt leader. This leads us to wonder whether or not Curley continued to steal money from the city and keep it for himself.
Now, I was wondering earlier that 'even though it is a crime to steal money or anything for that matter, who really cares if the outcome is beneficial?' -- there is a problem with that theory. The main issue with Political Machines like James Curley is that he was stealing money from the city to help only one specific group... the Irish. What happens to all the other people living in that city? What about the Germans or the Portuguese or whatever group of people that needs help. Not everyone is equally benefitted from the money that James Curely stealed. James Curely left a whole other group of people hanging.

But great arguement by the way.

The thing is that some officials actually did take the moneyt and put it to good use to help people. others liek Curley used the money to improve life and work for immigrants. The money taken is not justified but it did improve a certain type of life for a gorup of people...the immigrants. Some political machines helped one cultual group while anohter worked to help others. The fact is that our goverment also takes away money from us to omprove life and living conditions as well....taxes. So leading to that the people who stole the money werent justified in their actions but did use the money to actually pay back the community.

Nice Counterargument but im pretty nice at rebuttles.

Date: Feb 13, 2007

1. "The issue of the growing power of the railroad monopolies was one of broad concern. In 1893, there was a major financial panic, and conditions for masses of workers and farmers grew even more desperate. In 1894, the newly formed American Railway Union led by Eugene V. Debs called a national strike to support workers at the Pullman Palace Sleeping Car Company. It was met by violent repression by the Democratic administration of Grover Cleveland, which sent thousands of federal troops to attack the strikers. Debs and other union leaders were arrested and jailed."

-From A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan by Michael Kazin

2. Industrialization led to(1) wasteful uses of natural resources, (2) abuses of corporate power, and (3) unemployment and labor unrest. A massive depression began to set in as Americans began to realize that equal opportunity was out of their reach. Poverty, disease, crime, and corruption began to take over growing cities and the rise of new classes upset traditional class alignments.

3. Weaknesses of Progressive reform

1.) Material progress of Americans weakened zeal of reformers.
2.) Myriad of Progressive goals were often confusing and contradictory.
3.) Opposition to Progressivism apparent as initiatives failed and courts struck down Progressive legislation.
4.)Government remained mainly under the influence of business and industry.
5.) Outbreak of World War I dampened enthusiasm of attempts to use governments to create just societies on earth.

4. Concerns over abuses by business and the "robber barons" who exploited labor and the lack of government regulation of the marketplace also was a prevailing theme of those seeking reform. The sharp rise in economic activity spurred by industrialization and cheap labor contributed to concentrations of economic power among large national corporations and the formation of huge "trusts" as companies sought to eliminate their prime competitors. Between 1897 and 1904, 4,227 firms merged to form 257 corporations, with the largest merger consolidating nine steel companies to create the U.S. Steel Corp. controlled by Andrew Carnegie. By 1904, 318 companies controlled about 40 percent of the nation's manufacturing output. A single firm produced over half the output in 78 industries.

-Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

5.) Child Labor: Even years after the Progressive Era began, laws still had not bettered working conditions for children, women, and men alike. Businesses continued to munipulate laws to beat out competition and advance the power of their businesses.

Date: Feb 13, 2007

Progressivism was unsuccessful in the attempt to stop the unequal power of businesses. There was corruption of government, monopolies, child labor laws, and not enforcing acts and laws made to hinder big businesses.

The government was corrupt because of machine politicians and urban political bosses. Officials who were elected by the people were sometimes taken out and replaced with professional administrators who were saw as beneficial, which instead took the peoples voice away from them. They took people who they found unskilled for the job and replaced them with people they found fit for the job despite how the people felt about the decision.

Monopolies created an unequal power among businesses causing one type of business to over power and destroy competitors. Two well known people who did so was John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie both men monopolized the oil and steal industries. With this control over other competitors breaking threw they were left with complete control leaving the people helpless to this unequal power.

Child labor laws that were established were put into play to give children a better chance to go to school and mature however it wasn’t exactly beneficial. These laws sometimes took away family’s only source of income, some poor families often relied on their children to work to support the family and increase their income. Children worked for any type of business that would hire them, generally for small amounts of money weekly. These laws looked at children’s long term prospects trying to help benefit them and make them more well educated. The fact of the matter is if a child goes to get educated their families lose a source of income and become poorer and the family cant afford the child to go to school any longer. A child can work for bad conditions and eat or get and education and starve and possibly die due to that.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us31.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#Efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor

Date: Feb 14, 2007

Sadly, five of you did not turn in this assignment at all and are receiving a zero as a result. I would strongly suggest turning in your work for (very) reduced credit instead of permanently damaging your average in the third quarter.

Date: Feb 14, 2007

Curt Wrote:

The thing is that some officials actually did take the moneyt and put it to good use to help people. others liek Curley used the money to improve life and work for immigrants. The money taken is not justified but it did improve a certain type of life for a gorup of people...the immigrants. Some political machines helped one cultual group while anohter worked to help others. The fact is that our goverment also takes away money from us to omprove life and living conditions as well....taxes. So leading to that the people who stole the money werent justified in their actions but did use the money to actually pay back the community.

Nice Counterargument but im pretty nice at rebuttles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed. There were Political Machines who did steal money to improve immigrant living. You are also correct that it is completely unjustified. I mean, this whole situation sounds like Robin Hood ... "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor". How is this mutually beneficial?

Its not beneficial to everyone thats for sure. For instance, as you stated in one of your recent posts, James Curely stole money to help the Irish Community. Well thats very nice of him, but what about the other communities? Also, because this money was taken illegally, there was no way of regulating how the money would have been equally distributed. At times these men embezzled millions of dollars, therefore, it is highly possible that not everyone was benefitted equally. Millions of dollars is a whole lotta money. I find it so hard to believe that they gave ALL that money to a bunch of poor immigrants just because they wanted to be nice. In fact, many of these political machines stole the money for self interest, keeping a great deal of money for themselves. Based on the research that I have done on these political machines, these men primarily helped immigrants by giving them jobs under the table. Not only that, but when political machines would give out employment... they were doing a number of things that favors their self-interests. 1)They got a fan group of immigrants who were blinded by their political status. 2) They raised their reputations in society to make them more powerful. 3)They gave these factory owners cheap labor. 4)They could cut the pay checks of these cheap laborers and keep a whole lot of money for themselves.

But onto another thought.... lets just say that these men really were trying to help the needy. They were stealing for a good cause. The problem is... where is this money comming from? Its comming from city governments and the pay checks of immigrants who worked so hard for a slice of bread. Millions of dollars don't just appear. James Curely and other Political machines like him must have stolen it from a very wealthy company, or city, or town, etc. One thing that drives me crazy is why immigrants liked these crooks.

The reason why immigrants liked them so much, was because they were desperate. For example, in one of the documents for this monstrous assignment, a wealthy man with great political status was quoted. He stated that the poor are the most grateful people in the world. What he should realize is that the poor are also desperate. If i just got off a boat and entered into a a foreign country with no money, I would be extremely desperate for a job... and if someone helped me i would be mighty grateful. However, I might be ignorant to the fact that my employers are stealing money from my pay check which I earned. Or stealing from the city government which might help to improve my working conditions or pay for cleaning the slums which I had to live in.

I dunno Curt, its just a thought. I went all out on this one lol. This topic is getting kind of boring now. You do have good rebuttles, but i have a mighty good backlash thats long enough to make you not want to read it . See you tomorrow

Date: Feb 14, 2007

kathryn wrote:

Curt Wrote:

The thing is that some officials actually did take the moneyt and put it to good use to help people. others liek Curley used the money to improve life and work for immigrants. The money taken is not justified but it did improve a certain type of life for a gorup of people...the immigrants. Some political machines helped one cultual group while anohter worked to help others. The fact is that our goverment also takes away money from us to omprove life and living conditions as well....taxes. So leading to that the people who stole the money werent justified in their actions but did use the money to actually pay back the community.

Nice Counterargument but im pretty nice at rebuttles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed. There were Political Machines who did steal money to improve immigrant living. You are also correct that it is completely unjustified. I mean, this whole situation sounds like Robin Hood ... "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor". How is this mutually beneficial?

Its not beneficial to everyone thats for sure. For instance, as you stated in one of your recent posts, James Curely stole money to help the Irish Community. Well thats very nice of him, but what about the other communities? Also, because this money was taken illegally, there was no way of regulating how the money would have been equally distributed. At times these men embezzled millions of dollars, therefore, it is highly possible that not everyone was benefitted equally. Millions of dollars is a whole lotta money. I find it so hard to believe that they gave ALL that money to a bunch of poor immigrants just because they wanted to be nice. In fact, many of these political machines stole the money for self interest, keeping a great deal of money for themselves. Based on the research that I have done on these political machines, these men primarily helped immigrants by giving them jobs under the table. Not only that, but when political machines would give out employment... they were doing a number of things that favors their self-interests. 1)They got a fan group of immigrants who were blinded by their political status. 2) They raised their reputations in society to make them more powerful. 3)They gave these factory owners cheap labor. 4)They could cut the pay checks of these cheap laborers and keep a whole lot of money for themselves.

But onto another thought.... lets just say that these men really were trying to help the needy. They were stealing for a good cause. The problem is... where is this money comming from? Its comming from city governments and the pay checks of immigrants who worked so hard for a slice of bread. Millions of dollars don't just appear. James Curely and other Political machines like him must have stolen it from a very wealthy company, or city, or town, etc. One thing that drives me crazy is why immigrants liked these crooks.

The reason why immigrants liked them so much, was because they were desperate. For example, in one of the documents for this monstrous assignment, a wealthy man with great political status was quoted. He stated that the poor are the most grateful people in the world. What he should realize is that the poor are also desperate. If i just got off a boat and entered into a a foreign country with no money, I would be extremely desperate for a job... and if someone helped me i would be mighty grateful. However, I might be ignorant to the fact that my employers are stealing money from my pay check which I earned. Or stealing from the city government which might help to improve my working conditions or pay for cleaning the slums which I had to live in.

I dunno Curt, its just a thought. I went all out on this one lol. This topic is getting kind of boring now. You do have good rebuttles, but i have a mighty good backlash thats long enough to make you not want to read it . See you tomorrow

The backlash was good but i did read your post and i have come up with more stuff to attack on =).Many politicians have taken money from states and countries before for the self interest in a certain group of people for either military or political usage. Immigrants were mutually beneficial to the country because they worked in any condition to have money to stay in this country and make a better life. They were being paid more and the jobs were actually better here in the U.S. The immigrants actually were beneficial to the U.S. because they worked hard jobs that many didnt want to do and this led to a growth in industry and economy. The poor were also many during the ages and politics avoided them many a time. So why didnt the gov. help them out? Arent they almost in the situation as these politicial machines who were actually helping a community who was actually serving our country very well...? Yes they took the money and its wasnt a very great move but it also helped in a way increase our industry making the U.S. the most powerful Industrialized country in the world at the time. It doesnt justify the taking the money but in this case, one wrong made a couple of good rights.

Ok i think we r done arguing unless ud like to continue it lol.

Date: Feb 15, 2007

Alex Z. wrote:

L. Gonzalez wrote:

My five facts showing how the Progressive Era hindered the labor movement are:1.) The actual progressives were middle-class so they didn’t really know what it was like to live in a poor lifestyle. They were trying to help without knowing first hand what it was like to be a minority and deal with the racism and discrimination because you were a minority. There was a section in the packet given to us by Mr. E that read “Progressivism for Whites only.” That right there showed that even though they seemed to be trying to help, with the creation of the IWW they weren’t being successful in it. There was still that state of mind of white supremacy over all the immigrants and minorities that were coming into the United States. ...

1.
True, the Progressives were mostly made up of members of the middle-class, but lacking the true experience of a lower-class worker by no means discredits efforts to help such folk.
Progressives made an effort to achieve protective legislation - that is, federal laws to ensure their well-being - for women and children. Given that without such efforts of the progressives, big business would have continued on without any limits (e.g. trust-busters) as they had been after Reconstruction. Any and all results of the progressive movement (e.g. labor unions, etc.) surely must be accredited to those who went out of their way to help the common worker.

Well... you have a good point. But even though that was true they still wouldn't know exactly what was going on so they wouldn't have an accurate way to help them without knowing first hand what was actually the life of a poor person. The efforts were good but if you don't know exactly what it's like to be a certain way no matter what you do you will never fully help the people you are looking to help. but good point Alex!!

Date: Feb 15, 2007

melissa wrote:

By definition progressivism aims to achieve gradual social change, and most progressives are outright opposed to any form of radical revolution. Progressives often supported such goals as the eight-hour work day, improved safety and health conditions in factories, workers compensation laws, minimum wage laws, and unionization. Progressives also support the continual advancement of workers' rights and social justice.

We pledge ourselves to work...for:
Effective legislation looking to the prevention of industrial accidents, occupational diseases, overwork, involuntary unemployment, and other injurious effects incident to modern industry;
The fixing of minimum safety and health standards....
The prohibition of child labor;
Minimum wage standards for working women, to provide a "living wage" in all industrial occupations; The general prohibition of night work for women and the establishment of eight hour day for women and young persons;
One day's rest in seven for all wage workers;
The eight hour day in continuous twenty-four-hour industries;
The abolition of the convict contract-labor system....
Standards of compensation for death by industrial accident and injury and trade disease which will transfer the burden of lost earnings from the families of working people to the industry, and thus to the community....
Establishing...schools for industrial education under public control and encouraging agricultural education and demonstration in rural schools;
The establishment of industrial research laboratories to put the methods and discoveries of science at the service of American producers;
We favor the organization of the workers, men and women, as means protecting their interests and of promoting their progress.... -          Progressive Party Platform, 1912

The Five Original goals of Progressivism:

Democracy – Many progressives hoped to make government in the U.S. more responsive to the direct voice of the American people by instituting reforms such as initiative, and direct primary.
Social Justice and equality – Many progressives supported both private and governmental action to help people in need (such action is called social justice). They embraced welfare, Prohibition of Alcohol, and women’s suffrage.
Creating economic reform – Through regulation of large corporations and monopolies by actions such as trust busting, many progressives hoped that they could liberate human energies from the restrictions imposed by industrial capitalism.
Fostering the Efficiency Movement – Many progressives hoped to make American governments better able to serve the peoples needs by making governmental operations and services more efficient and rational.
Environmentalism - made great strides under progressive President Theodore Roosevelt

Article 23
1.      Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2.      Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3.      Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4.      Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours   and periodic holidays with pay.

Even though this was all true there was still a lot of white supremacy in the area during this time. The goal of the American government was to adress these issues but they weren't necessarily met. No matter what the government should've done and was aiming to do immigrants and people who weren't fully American weren't given the same rights meaning that whatever changes came during Progressivism wouldn't really benefit them in any way. Don't you think that's true!!

Date: Feb 15, 2007

Curt, I've basically just stated all the possible information I have against the political machines and why they are so terrible lol. If I even attempt to continue this arguement I think my brain will turn into

. I had fun arguing with you though...

I hope we get an A+ for this massive assignment and amazing argument we have constructed.

(hint hint Mr E

)
(Just kidding... not really)

goodnight everyone!!

Date: Feb 15, 2007

kathryn wrote:

Curt, I've basically just stated all the possible information I have against the political machines and why they are so terrible lol. If I even attempt to continue this arguement I think my brain will turn into . I had fun arguing with you though...

I hope we get an A+ for this massive assignment and amazing argument we have constructed.
(hint hint Mr E)
(Just kidding... not really)

goodnight everyone!!

Agreed. Hard work does pay off big time though lol.

Date: Feb 15, 2007

C.Santos wrote:

kathryn wrote:

Curt, I've basically just stated all the possible information I have against the political machines and why they are so terrible lol. If I even attempt to continue this arguement I think my brain will turn into . I had fun arguing with you though...

I hope we get an A+ for this massive assignment and amazing argument we have constructed.
(hint hint Mr E)
(Just kidding... not really)

goodnight everyone!!

Agreed. Hard work does pay off big time though lol.

Hint, hint taken.

Date: Feb 15, 2007

L. Gonzalez wrote:

Alex Z. wrote:

L. Gonzalez wrote:

My five facts showing how the Progressive Era hindered the labor movement are:1.) The actual progressives were middle-class so they didn’t really know what it was like to live in a poor lifestyle. They were trying to help without knowing first hand what it was like to be a minority and deal with the racism and discrimination because you were a minority. There was a section in the packet given to us by Mr. E that read “Progressivism for Whites only.” That right there showed that even though they seemed to be trying to help, with the creation of the IWW they weren’t being successful in it. There was still that state of mind of white supremacy over all the immigrants and minorities that were coming into the United States. ...

1.
True, the Progressives were mostly made up of members of the middle-class, but lacking the true experience of a lower-class worker by no means discredits efforts to help such folk.
Progressives made an effort to achieve protective legislation - that is, federal laws to ensure their well-being - for women and children. Given that without such efforts of the progressives, big business would have continued on without any limits (e.g. trust-busters) as they had been after Reconstruction. Any and all results of the progressive movement (e.g. labor unions, etc.) surely must be accredited to those who went out of their way to help the common worker.
Well... you have a good point. But even though that was true they still wouldn't know exactly what was going on so they wouldn't have an accurate way to help them without knowing first hand what was actually the life of a poor person. The efforts were good but if you don't know exactly what it's like to be a certain way no matter what you do you will never fully help the people you are looking to help. but good point Alex!!

I concur

Date: Jan 23, 2015

YOU GUYS ARE ****BLOCKS