The Groups That Shaped the Progressive Era of Reform

To say that there was only one key group that shaped the progressive era is to say that one key group shaped the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In both cases, it would inaccurate and lacking to describe the movements as shaped by solely one group; they were shaped and united by a common goal. In the 1960s that goal was civil rights for all, and was comprised of numerous groups and organizations working together or in parallel. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Progressive Era can only be defined by the different groups who joined together or in parallel to shape a new economy, political environment, and social order in the rise of a corporate America.

In Shelton Stromquist’s article, the case is made that the labor movement/working class in Cleveland was the single most important group leading to the changes within local government. Stromquist uses the example of the streetcar strike of 1899 which united the working class against the growing abuse of power by big business - Big Consolidated streetcar company in this case.¹ These strikes brought much attention to the fact that leaders in both parties were not representing laborers best interests, instead they were representing the interests of Big Business. In rallying support, the working class was able to increase the awareness within the community eventually leading to a drastic alteration in how the Democratic Party represented the working class.² I believe Stromquist to make a sound argument within his article; however, this is one group within one city contributing to a wider movement spanning the nation.

Maureen A. Flanagan puts forth an argument for women as the key group shaping the Progressive Era. Flanagan’s argument is centered around the differences between men and women’s groups in how they would deal with municipal sanitation, public education and police power.³ The men’s City Club primarily focused on the business aspect and the return of profits when making decisions while the women focused on the moral and social implications of those decisions.⁴ These women of Chicago joined together a network that would help to shape the conversation throughout Chicago. Their increase in membership and their influence among the community showed a great political influence even though their voting rights were lacking. Again, I would argue that although the women mentioned in Flanagan’s article were influential in the Progressive Era, however, were not the key group effecting the overall movement.

When one looks at the Progressive Era of reform and the influence that specific groups had on the reshaping of the economy, political environment and social norms, each had a hand in this effort whether through direct or parallel actions. Stromquist illuminates the actions taken by Cleveland’s working class in an effort to reduce the powers held by Big Business. This was a coalition across the political spectrum redefining how political parties viewed the political influence of the laborers. Flanagan shares the success of the Women’s City Club of Chicago in their efforts to effect reforms within sanitation, education and law enforcement. These women, many wives of men in the City Club, did not shy away from controversy and proved that women could be a politically relevant constituency. Separately, each played a key role in their respective cities, but when viewed through the wide-angled lens of the entire Progressive Era, they played an equally important role in the reforms to limit the spread of absolute power by the rising corporate monopolies.

        1. Shelton Stromquist, “The Crucible of Class: Cleveland Politics and the Origins of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era,” Journal of Urban History 23 (1997): 192-220, http://juh.sagepub.com/content/23/2/192.citation (accessed February 19, 2012).

        2. Ibid, 213.

        3. 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 Vol. 95, No. 4 (October 1990): 1032-1050, http://www.jstor.org/pss/2163477 (accessed February 19, 2012).

        4. Ibid.

1864 Election Cartoon

Printed in Harper’s Weekly in 1864, this cartoon presents President Abraham Lincoln, Confederate president Jefferson Davis, and Presidential hopeful George McClellan in a battle over the map of the United States. On the left, Lincoln is tugging on the map while stating “No peace without Abolition!” and on the right Jefferson Davis is attempting to pull the map his direction while stating, “No peace without separation!!” Accordingly, the map is beginning to tear down the middle of the United States as Lincoln grasps the North and Davis grasps the South. As the United States was embroiled in the bloody Civil War, violently dividing the U.S., presidential hopeful McClellan is portrayed in the middle of this tug-of-war as the reasonable mediator. McClellan, a former top General to Lincoln hence the General’s garb, was running under the Democratic party on an anti-Emancipation Proclamation platform criticizing the Lincoln administration for its failed policies.¹ Within this cartoon McClellan attempts to bring the two sides together by holding Lincoln and Davis together by their suit jackets while stating, “The Union must be preserved at all hazards!” Additionally, one can see that Davis’ pant legs are badly torn representing the tattered condition of the Confederacy in the waning days of the Civil War, yet his facial expression shows no signs of caving. The tag-line at the bottom of the cartoon reads, “The True Issue or ‘That’s What’s the Matter’.” This cartoon is pro-McClellan, and is referencing his stance that the war needed to come to a negotiated end² or the Union could be lost forever.

       1. “The True Issue or ‘That’s What’s the Matter,’” (1864) in Harper's Weekly,
http://elections.harpweek.com/1864/cartoon-1864-Medium.asp?UniqueID=38&Year=1864 (accessed February 13, 2012).

       2. S. Mintz, “The 1864 Presidential Election,” Digital History http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=121 (accessed February 13, 2012).

Human Rights or Rich, White, Christian Male Rights?

Today we are still engaging in the debate started in the late 18th century. We continue to struggle to define universally the “rights” guaranteed to all human beings. As seen in the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), the rights guaranteed to man are just that - rights given to specific men, not to everyone.^{1 2} The reason for this is the fact that those who already have the rights do not want to allow others to enjoy the same freedoms as they do. Somewhere along the line, certain individuals perceived themselves better than others and sought to subjugate them. Some, claiming divine right, took advantage of a religious population to catapult themselves into superiority without actually having any superior qualities. Religion, in my deepest belief, should have no bearing on idea of equal rights for all. The concept of one person deserving more rights than another is nothing more than the “haves”’ unwillingness to hand over power stolen from a society thousands of years ago. Unless those in control unexpectedly agree to relinquish this power, we will continue to fight the same battles of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. When will we as a society decide that fair is fair and equal is equal for ALL, not just some? Have we been brainwashed by those in power to perceive ourselves less than they? They are in power because they took it, and we’ve sat back and accepted our fate as inferiors. We’ve stood by for centuries as our fellow humans have been ostracized for being anything but straight, rich, male, and Christian. The sickening hypocrisy of the latter is, for a religion so obsessed with persecuting homosexuality, their own priests have a problem keeping their hands off of little boys. Furthermore, instead of calling foul, the Church decides that they should simply cover it up because their priests are somehow above the laws which apply to everyone else. Who gave them these privileges? If you say God, then whose God? Is it God’s will for individuals to enslave entire races of people and kill thousands in the name of their definition of God? Did God intend to create a world where some people have all and many have none? No, but society, religion, government, and social norms did. So once again, until we as a society decide that right is right and equal is equal for all, we are destined to be a slave population to those who’ve taken the “right” to tell us what we believe, who deserves, and who does not. A powerful and relevant quote on the topic comes from Olaudah Equiano in the previous module, where he states:

When you make men slaves you deprive them of half their virtue, you set them in your own conduct an example of fraud, rapine, and cruelty, and compel them to live with you in a state of war; and yet you complain that they are not honest or faithful! You stupify them with stripes, and think it necessary to keep them in a state of ignorance; and yet you assert that they are incapable of learning; that their minds are such a barren soil or moor, that culture would be lost on them; and that they come from a climate, where nature, though prodigal of her bounties in a degree unknown to yourselves, has left man alone scant and unfinished, and incapable of enjoying the treasures she has poured out for him!³

This is true even today. Those of us not in the top tier of society will always be slaves as long as we allow the top tier of society to make the rules. They will never relinquish the power they stole from the masses long ago unless We the People decide that those “self-evident” truths our forefathers wrote about actually apply to all human kind and not just a select group within society. Until then, I’ll see you in shackles.

Full disclosure:  I am a white male, raised in an upper-middle class household to be Christian and Republican. I have since been a Democratic political operative and have seen hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle; I no longer belong to any party. I also no longer call myself a Christian, as I cannot associate myself with any religion that says they stand for acceptance, all the while judging anyone not like them. I believe in the “Golden Rule” - treat others as you would like to be treated. If we all lived by this creed, society would be a better place for it. Unfortunately, some believe that they have the right to treat everyone like slaves and expect to be treated like gods in return.

         1. Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (August 26, 1789), in The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History, ed. Lynn Hunt (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1996), 77-79.

         2. Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html (accessed February 9, 2012).

         3. Olaudah Equiano, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, (1789), in The Intersting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano: Written by Himself with Related Documents, ed. Robert J. Allison (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 113.

Early Day Swift-Boat Tactics?

          Although there is still much debate as to the birthplace of Olaudah Equiano, there is no doubt in my mind that Equiano was born in Africa as his Narrative illustrates.  As much of the evidence to prove Equiano’s African roots is also used as evidence to prove the contrary as seen in the works by Vincent Carretta,¹ the logical next step is to analyze the character of the man making the claims.  Throughout the Narrative, Equiano is faced with many moral dilemmas to which Equiano always chose the righteous course of action.  After accidentally killing his master’s chicken, Equiano confesses stating “for I told her the truth, because my mother would never suffer me to tell a lie.”²  Later while on the island of Guadeloupe, an opportunity arose for Equiano to escape to Europe but remained with his master’s vessel and stated that “‘honesty is the best policy,’ I suffered them to go without me.”³  Equiano was an honest, loyal, and hardworking man who strove to earn his freedom rather than live a life on the run.  This is not the character of a man who would fabricate his entire origin of being to end slavery.  Equiano however needed to fill in facts to which his memory was lacking as well as needed to write in a way that would capture the reader’s attention as to get the message out to the masses.  These areas of Equiano’s writing turn into key points for those who claim Equiano fabricated his origins to help sell his book.

          In 1792, as Equiano began publicizing his Narrative in an effort to raise awareness about the evils of the slave-trade, two anonymous notes were published questioning Equiano’s origins only to be retracted by the paper after Equiano provided witnesses proving his authenticity.⁴  These anonymous notes were nothing short of modern day swift-boat tactics to distract from the message Equiano was putting forth.  As suggested by Mr. Carretta and reiterated in the Introduction to Equiano’s Narrative, many of the details relating to Equiano’s origins were very generalized and take much from other texts.  If one looks at Equiano’s journey through the eyes of a nine or ten year old who had just been kidnapped and sold into the slave trade, it is easy to understand why other sources would need to be consulted to fill in the gaps in his memory.  Others suggest that Equiano made up his African name based on the fact that nobody in the New World knew him by this name; however, once kidnapped Equiano’s identity was ripped away from him by his dealers.  Equiano describes how “in this place I was called Jacob; but on board the African snow I was called Michael.”⁵  Furthermore, once he was assigned to the Industrious Bee, Lieutenant Pascal refused to allow Equiano to go by Jacob and gave him a new name of Gustavus Vasa.⁶  After numerous changes in both owner and name, it becomes clear why the name Equiano was not associated with him throughout his time as a slave.  Lastly, much of the debate around Equiano’s origins comes from two documents that state he was from South Carolina: Equiano’s baptismal record and a Royal Navy muster roll.  At the time of his baptism Equiano states that “I could now speak English tolerably well, and I perfectly understood every thing that was said.”⁷  So if there is no question as to his understanding of the question of place of birth, why the discrepancy.  The answer lies in the subsequent lines of text: “I no longer looked upon them as spirits, but as men superior to us; and therefore I had the stronger desire to resemble them; to imbibe their spirit, and imitate their manners; I therefore embraced every occasion of improvement.”⁸  On top of wanting to emulate Englishmen, it was important and desirable to represent oneself as not from Africa, so stating his birth as Carolina not only insulates him from being categorized as “African,” but also fills Equiano’s desire to become more like the Englishmen.  This could be the same logic to explain his response to place of birth as seen in the Royal Navy muster roll.  By analyzing Equiano’s character, the motivations and tactics used by the accusers, and the lack of hard evidence to refute Equiano’s statements, it is my firmest belief that he was in fact African-born.

          1.  Bryccan Carey, Where was Olaudah Equiano Born? (And Why Does It Matter?) http://www.brycchancarey.com/equiano/nativity.htm (accessed February 1, 2012).

          2.  Olaudah Equiano, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano (1789), in The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano: Written by Himself with Related Documents, ed. Robert J. Allison (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 59.

          3.  Equiano, 122.

          4.  Robert J. Allison, introduction to The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, by Olaudah Equiano (1789), in The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano: Written by Himself with Related Documents, ed. Robert J. Allison (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 24-25.

          5.  Equiano, 71.

          6.  Equiano, 72.

          7.  Equiano, 83.

          8.  Equiano, 83.