Important Examples of Progressive Reforms
(Progressive
Era: approx. 1890s-1920)
Settlement House Movement – White, upper-middle
class, college-educated women who wanted to make a difference in society
created and worked at settlement houses, which were like community centers in
inner-city, immigrant neighborhoods.
They wanted to improve the lives of slum-dwellers by providing education
and child care, teaching English and other basic skills, helping the immigrants
get better jobs and housing, and uplifting them culturally (art & music
appreciation.) Part of the mission of the settlement house workers was
Americanization of immigrants – to teach the immigrants WASP middle-class
values. The most famous settlement house was Hull House in
Housing and Sanitation
Reforms – Progressive
reformers urged cities to pass legislation which set standards for housing (to
try to eliminate the worst tenements) and such sanitation matters as garbage
pick-up and sewage systems. The
legislation would require the hiring of inspectors to see that these standards
were met. Many of the inspectors first
hired by city governments under these reforms were women, such as Jane Addams.
Beautification Campaigns – Some reformers wanted to
improve the urban environment by making it more pleasant and attractive. This,
like the housing reforms, was based on their idea that an improved environment
meant improved people. (This idea was a rejection of Social Darwinism.) Some of their reforms included parks, civic
centers, and better transportation systems.
Some historians argue that these were superficial reforms enacted to
please the middle-class inhabitants or tourists of cities, but did not really
address the dire problems of the masses who lived in the slums.
Anti-Prostitution Campaign – Progressives were
responsible for the Mann Act (1910), which prohibited interstate transportation
of women for “immoral purposes.” By
1915, nearly every state had outlawed prostitution.
Woman suffrage – This was the movement to secure
for women the right to vote. Many different kinds of women (race, class, and
ethnicity) joined the campaign to win the federal amendment, but the movement
was mainly led by WASP middle and upper-class women.
Factory Safety Regulations,
Limits on Working Hours (mainly for women), Workers’ Compensation for injuries,
Restrictions on Women and Child Labor - While labor
unions sought these measures by organizing workers to bargain with their
employers, a tense alliance between some middle-class and working-class
reformers also sought these reforms by passing laws (government intervention
instead of collective bargaining.) These
reformers were successful in convincing most states to pass factory inspection
laws, workers comp, and minimum age of employment laws. Some states passed laws limiting the number
of hours women (but not men) could work. These regulations were usually difficult to
enforce; many employers found ways to evade them.
Another problem was that some working-class families
wanted their women and children to work in order to make as much money for the
family as possible (in order to survive) and did not appreciate reforms that restricted
women and child labor. Many middle-class
reformers did not understand this reaction.
Many middle-class reformers believed that the working class should adopt
WASP middle-class values, which included the value that women and children
should not work for wages.
Moreover, even though they wanted to improve
conditions for workers, many middle-class reformers were suspicious of (or
hostile to) labor unions because they felt threatened by the idea of
working-class autonomy, or working-class solidarity. They were much more comfortable with the idea
of the middle class generously bestowing labor reforms upon the downtrodden
workers, which is a paternalistic attitude.
Working-class reformers, including socialists, recognized this
condescending attitude and were uneasy about working with middle-class
reformers to ahiceve labor legislation, though they
often swallowed hard and did anyway. There were, however, some examples of
fairly harmonious organizations that brought working-class and middle-class reformers
together to help workers.
Temperance, then Prohibition – Progressive reformers
focused their fight against the consumption of alcohol on the saloons. Saloons were a major center of immigrant
culture, for they were not only bars but important social gathering places and
where most political machines operated out of.
The Progressives’ war on saloons was motivated by a sincere concern for
the real dangers of alcohol consumption and its effect on families,
particularly on innocent women and children, and also by a less compassionate
anti-immigrant sentiment. Overall,
Prohibition aimed at decreasing, if not stopping, drinking by the working
class, especially working-class immigrants. Prohibition also had an economic
motivation: employers wanted sober, efficient workers.
Kill the Political Machine – Progressives viewed the
immigrants’ political machines as corrupt and inefficient. Also, middle-class WASP reformers felt
threatened by the power these machines afforded working-class immigrants. Progressives wanted to take the “politics”
(the wheeling & dealing, the personal favors) out of government to make it
more scientific and efficient and remove power from the hands of
immigrants. They advocated replacing
elected officials with appointed experts, such as trained city managers.
Initiative, Referendum,
Recall, and Popular Election of Senators (17th Amendment) – (look
these up in your textbook if you don’t know what they are)These reforms aimed
to bring about broader political participation – to return power to “the
people” and eliminated corrupt and concentrated power. Some historians argue that middle-class WASP
reformers pushed these reforms because they saw themselves, not working-class
immigrants or African Americans, as the “people” who would gain power. Some middle-class reformers assumed that the
working class would not have the time, intelligence, or other resources to
participate actively in the political process.
Meat Inspection Act, and the
Pure Food & Drug Act – Before the passage of these acts, there was no government agency to
make sure that food, drugs, or any other kind of product was safe. The credo
“let the buyer beware” had dominated.
But when Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, which
publicized the disgusting methods of meat-packing plants, the public became
outraged. Reformers argued that in a
complex, technological age dominated by big business, consumers needed
impartial government experts to regulate manufacturers, tell consumers what was
safe, and eliminate corrupt business practices.
Anti-Trust Regulation -
Progressives sought more fairness in the capitalist economy and thought that if
businesses became too big and powerful (trusts or monopolies), then they could
exploit consumers and workers and drive out small businesses. Progressives believed that the government
needed to intervene to regulate the size and power of corporations. Examples of
anti-trust laws and government agencies to regulate “trusts” are the Interstate
Commerce Commission (and the Hepburn Act), the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and The
Federal Trade Commission.