Katie Owen's US historyblog: 2014

The Progressive Era saw a great push towards reform by progressives and with their influence, the federal government. Although the types of reforms people were asking for are scattered they fell into three main categories, faith in knowledge, social cohesion, and anti-monoply, which often over lapped one another. Between 1900-1920 reformers and the federal government made many achievements in their progressive goal but most of these were never fully accomplished and had limitations. The successes and limits of these reformers depended on the presidents during this time period Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson, the opponents to reform, the progressives themselves, as well as the type of reform it was.

During Roosevelt's presidency he became a champion for reform because of his cautious, moderate changes, leading to success of many new reforms. He believed that reform wasn't for remaking society but for protecting it against more radical change. Roosevelt did not believe all cooperation were bad, for example, but rather they should be judge on whether they abuse their power and if they were good for the whole, "good trust" vs. "bad trust" distinction. In 1902 Roosevelt involved successfully the Sherman anti-trust act on the great railroad monopoly owned by J.P. Morgan, the Northern Securities Company, an example of a "bad trust". However during the panic of 1907 Roosevelt allowed Morgan's U.S. Steal Company to by shares of Tennessee Coal and Iron Company,becoming a bigger monopoly, with the promise that the purchase would help the recession which it did. This was an example of a "good trust" because it helped the whole. This is exemplified by a 1907 Washington Post political cartoon(Doc. A) that shows Roosevelt restraining good trust and destroying bad trusts. Showing that government must be more powerful than corporations and police them, but that good trust are not a threat to society. It also showed the limits of the anti-monopoly movement, simply by having "good trust" it isn't completely fulfilling the original progressives motives. Another major reform that came during his presidency was in direct result of the meat packing industry. In 1906 there were numerous reports of the unhealthy condition in the meat packing industry. The Jungle ,by Upton Sinclair, was a novel that talked about issues with cleanliness as well as a rat problem that many meat packing industries possessed. Which inspired Neill-Reynolds Report(Doc. B) that described workers ill with tuberculosis coughing on the meat unaware of the relationship between cleanliness and disease. It also described the buildings themselves as dirty and rarely washed. With these critics being published and read by most of the public Roosevelt was forced to take action. He signing the Meat Packing Act in 1906 regulating the conditions for a healthier environment as well as the Pure Food and Drug act that requires labels listing the ingredients on medicine to enable costumers to make an educated chose. These new reformer would fall into the faith in knowledge category. The reform was using knowledge about how diseases spread and the important of cleanliness when handling food. Also it gave consumers the ability to actually evaluate what was in the products they were taking so they could make conscious choices.

The numerous reforms Roosevelt passed gave him great popularity among the people, however during Taft short period as president was able to lose all the progressive support Roosevelt had gained. Taft's first problem arose in the opening months of his president when he called Congress into a special session to lower protective tariff rate. The result was the feeble Payne-Aldrich Tariff, which barely reduce rates and in some areas even raised them. One major way he lost support was through Ballinger-Pinchot conflict that broke in late 1909. Ballinger was accused of turning over coal lands to a private owner but soon was cleared. However Pinchot, a main opponent of Ballinger, decided to investigate the case more thoroughly because of this Taft fired Pinchot. This move lost Taft most of the Progressives support because Pinchot was a favorite among them. Despite his faltering popularity among progressives he did not oppose change. In 1912, he supported and signed legislation to create a federal Children's Bureau. It was created to investigate "all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life". The first chief of the Bureau, Julia Lathrop, helped make it a force for progressive change not just as a federal policy, but also in state and local governments. However Roosevelt failed to recognize this progressive reform and only focused on Taft's decline popularity among progressive reforms. Roosevelt decided to run for president again under his idea of "New Nationalism" leaving behind the cautious ways of his first presidency to advocate for even stronger social reforms. In a speech Roosevelt gave in 1912(Doc. D)he demonstrated his more aggressive approach; he stressed the importance of more direct government, direct presidential primaries, direct election of senators and the direct vote of the people instead of the electoral college. It was with these reforms and other he tried to reunite the Republican Party. However he was unable to get the majority of the Republican National Committee to vote in his favor, so the nomination went to Taft. In the end Roosevelt ran under the new Progressive Party or the "Bull Moose", and even though he failed his reform plans had a major influence on how the people thought government should be run.

The winner of the 1912 election was Wilson, who championed the idea of "New Freedom", which unlike Roosevelt's good trust vs bad trust distinction, was the belief that bigness was both unjust and inefficient and that the proper response to monopolies were to not regulate but destroy them. We see this idea of "New Freedom" with the passage of the Clayton Trust Act 1914(Doc. E) that was enacted to strengthen the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, that for over a decade was indifferently enforced and steadily weakened by the courts. The Act made price discrimination unlawful when it is lessening competition, and making labor unions exempt from the anti-trust laws because labor is not a commodity-which gave labor unions new influence. The passage of the Act was a huge success for anti-monopoly reformers because unlike previous reforms it made all trust illegal. But despite this Wilson exaggerated on all his achievements. It's for this reason that Herbert Wilson wrote an article in the New Republic in 1914(Doc. F) attacking Wilson and his supporters. He admits Wilson had success, like ten Clayton Anti-Trust Act, abut they are inadequate compared to what reformers really need. He calls for greater progressive change because to correct the issues of modern day society it will take time and the passage of mean new reforms. This exposes Wilson's limitations, he focus to harshly of eliminating trust and not enough on making changes in people's everyday lives.

The presidents of this time period did play a major role in reforms, but reformers themselves also made great progress. A key example is Jane Addams, a fighter for social cohesion and faith and knowledge reforms. She was a social worker who opened up the Hull House in 1889,a settlement house, that was a model was for over 400 other similar institutions. It provided housing for immigrants and poor along with educating them and imparting them with the American value system. She felt strongly that all children had the right to an education and that big business was taking this right away by permitting them to work. In her "The Spirit of Youth and the City Streets" in 1909(Doc. C) she agrues that their needed to be a law in place that prevents children from working so they will have an opportunity to learn. She knows that in the modern industrial society many children from poor families will be forced in to work to help support their families if there isn't a law to prevent them. With her influence and the influence of others, Taft supported and signed federal Children's Bureau as previously mentioned. However their were obvious opponents to this progressive reform. Many of the children who were working came from poor families who depended on their income. While preventing children to work gave them a chance to educate themselves, and to possible move up the social economic ladder, it put the families under even more economic stress. In Hammer v Dagenhart in 1918(Doc. G) we see the opposition as the father argues for his sons right to work. He's say the law not only violates the Constitution but it's a local manner. While his complaints and other were never able to repeal this law, it still served as a prime example of how people opposed reformed and tried to rebel against it.