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.