Module 6: Progressivism

The progressive movement in the United States was a coalition of various groups striving for reform in both the problematic social and political aspects of the lives of Americans. Progressivism grew out from the need of Americans looking to protect themselves and their families from the adverse affects of both these issues. This fight for reform occurred on many different levels and ranged from large-scale violent strikes to small associations taking matters into their own hands, such as the Chicago Women’s City Club. Both Stromquist and Flanagan bring to light the efforts of both the working-class and the Chicago Women’s City Club in their attempts at reform, especially on the local level. Whereas the working-class fought on a more radical level, women of the City Club sought for reform for the sake of health and welfare. Ultimately, though, both parties played a vital role in the movement for progression.

Flanaghan claims that it was the workings of organizations, specifically the Chicago Women’s City club, that proved to be the key influential of the progressive movement. With problems such as housing, public school systems being “understaffed and underfunded,”[1] the collection and disposal of garbage lacking, and the overall safety conditions for Americans woefully unsatisfactory, women turned to the concept of making America “homelike” in the hope of reforming their communities and making them safe for all. Like Mary McDowell stated, issues such as garbage disposal should not be thought of as a business and should be pursued because of the health problems associated with poor disposal.[2] The Chicago Women’s City Club may not have had sole responsibility in the reforms that took place during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, but their effort to provide “for the welfare of its residents,” [3] and their local efforts cannot be doubted to have lead to reform and progress.

Stromquist, on the other hand, argues that progressivism was sparked by the efforts of the working-class and that it was their “labor conflicts that realigned local politics,” allowing for reform.[4] He mentions how, “mass strikes, political insurgencies, and the social crisis of American capitalism in the 1890s created a unique set of conditions that served as a breeding ground for…social and political reform”;[5] The series of streetcar strikes, for example that took place in Cleveland. Basically, Stromquist holds to the notion that it was the collaboration and radical efforts of the working class that opened up the eyes of the political level and sparked the movement for reform.

---

[1].         Maureen A. Flanagan, “Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Woman's City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” The American Historical Review 95, no. 4 (October 1990): 1034.

[2].        Ibid.

[3].        Ibid.

[4].        Shelton Stromquist, “The Crucible of Class : Cleveland Politics and the Origins of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era,” Journal of Urban History 23, no. 2 (January 1997) 204

[5].         Ibid. 195

Who is Tariff and why is he for revenue only?

This drawing is one of the many painted by the political caricaturist, Thomas Nast. In order to truly understand the picture, I think it is just as important to understand a little about Nast and his political views. Nast was a devout Republican -minus his brief bout as a “mugwump” in the election of 1884, which happened after this drawing so really does not matter- that drew political cartoons for Harper’s Weekly -also an extremely republican faction at the time this specific drawing appeared. Nast was close friends with Republican President Ulysses S. Grant and frequently defended his presidency through his political drawings. Nast was known for his campaigning against, and ultimate assistance in the takedown of Tammany Hall and the Boss “Tweed Ring,” a corrupt democratic organization.[1] I think this paints a picture of how devout a Republican Nast was during this time!

Now for the drawing itself: Portrayed here is a picture of two men, a Senator from New Jersey named Theodore Fitz Randolph, and more importantly, Winfield Scott Hancock. Hancock was a decorated Union General of the Civil War who gained the democratic nomination in the election of 1880. For the most part, Hancock was highly respected throughout the north and the south and proved to be a strong contender against Republican nominee, James Garfield. The only downfall for Hancock was what many believed to be his lack of experience as a politician and ignorance on certain issues, such as tariffs, which were a top matter during this time.

In 1880, Hancock agreed to an interview with a local New Jersey newspaper. When asked about the tariff, Hancock responded by saying that, “the tariff question is a local question.”[2] Republicans, especially Nast, took this as an affirmation that Hancock was truly ignorant about the tariff issue. Naturally, the Republicans, especially Nast, ran with the information and published the cartoon you see now.

Nast depicts Hancock’s comment specifically in the small captions at the bottom of the drawing, where Hancock is depicted asking Senator Rudolph, “Who is Tariff and why is he for revenue only?”[3] Here Nast is implying that Hancock is not only vastly uninformed, he is completely ignorant because  he actually believes “Tariff” is a person, “he.”

---

[1].         “Thomas Nast Biography,” Ohio State University, accessed February 14, 2012, http://cartoons.osu.edu/nast/bio.htm

  

[2].         “Harp Weekly 1880 Garfield vs Hancock,” Harp Week, LLC, accessed February 15, 2012, http://elections.harpweek.com/1880/cartoon-1880-medium.asp?UniqueID=36&Year=1880

[3].         Ibid. 

What are Human Rights?

Sorry this picture is so blown out! You try shooting in the low light of the Pantheon with no flash or tripod.

Here are few pictures from my trip to Paris this summer. The first collage is of the Palace of Versailles, specifically the Hall of Mirrors, where the General Estates convened. The following photos are of the Pantheon, which houses the burials of many of the most famous and influential Enlightenment thinkers of France. 


What are Rights?

Rights…what to say about rights. Well, I think the idea of human rights, or more specifically natural rights, is a beautiful concept, but an unrealistic one; kind of like the whole “world peace!” in the movie, Miss Congeniality, thing! There are several problems with the notion of “equal rights for all.” For one, it’s vagueness. What are rights? Defining just exactly what human rights entails has been a problem plaguing the greatest thinkers of not only our time, but for centuries before us. Such as Lynn Hunt states in her text, “The French Revolution and Human Rights,” when the General Assembly in France of 1789 commenced, they had every intention of formulating a constitution, rights and all, but ran into so many issues that they ended meeting with the 17 articles of “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen” and never reopened the discussions.[1] If 500 men could not determine terms on what exactly human rights were and what the job of the government was in protecting those rights, it shows just how complicated of a matter the subject is…although maybe if it would have been women making these decisions…!  (;

Plenty of other questions arise when discussing rights mainly due to the subjectivity of the topic. During the 18^th century, for example, the conviction that all of us are equal by nature was extremely prevalent. But once again, this idea was vague. What exactly was/is nature? According to Professor Wright’s lecture, when rights are based on moral grounds, what constitutes something as right or wrong, and good or bad?[2] And really, when it comes down to it, rights are fundamentally moral and ethical, i.e. everyone is created equal. I don’t know how greater of an example of a value judgment you can get.

Lastly, how can you bestow a right on someone without restricting, or flat out revoking the rights of another? The right stated in, The Declaration of the Rights of Man, for example, notes that the “law is the expression of the general will …”[3] And back to my argument of vagueness, what is the general will? How many? Who? The article says “all citizens,” but what makes someone a citizen? And the article itself blatantly shows that at least one person will lose out on his or her rights to the “general will.”[4]

Anyway, most of you are probably wondering what the heck I am talking about. Obviously the whole notion of “rights” is something I can honestly say I haven’t thought too deeply about in my lifetime, and is rather apparent in my whole argument. I hope that maybe I made a few valid and clear points though and that you get something out of it!

---

[1]. Lynn Hunt. The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Document. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s) 15.

[2]. Johnson Wright. The French Revolution and Human Rights.

[3]. Lynn Hunt. The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Document. Ibid. 78

[4]. Ibid. 78