From 1890 to 1920 the United States went through a difficult time when people started realizing that they need to be in charge of their own life. People realized that they were being over worked and were getting little to no pay. Also people realized that the government was rarely involved in big businesses, who were dominating the economy. Who are the Progressives? What social groups did the Progressives represent? What political system or “reformed” society did the Progressives seek? All of these questions were answered by the historians, Gabriel Kolko, Joseph Huthmacher, and George Mowry.
Huthmacher and Mowry had a different view of who they thought Progressives were. Huthmacher believed, “Urban lower class provided active, numerically strong, and politically necessary force for reform”. He also stated the urban lower-class was accountable for the majority of change because they are the ones that were affected the most. They were the ones that lived in the depths of the city and experienced the true effects of the government not being involved. Mowry believed that wealthy and the more educated of the middle class were the progressives. This consensus was the most popular in historian’s views. Mowry discuses that in middle class there are three different sub-divisions “those who had more money than was good for them, who had just enough, those who had much less than was morally desirable”. Mowry discussed that the people who had “just enough” were the loudest in politics and social reforms. This division between middle class caused the problems that led the Progressives to seek government help. The Progressives represented the people who needed a change in government and wanted to live in a financially stable and safe economy. People of the lower-class Progressives were fighting for “workmen’s compensation, widows’ pensions, wages and hour’s legislation, factory safety legislation…” and many other laws (Huthmacher, 13). They wanted to make sure that the lower-class people were getting treated fairly at work. Many times in the work place men and women felt like they were being pushed to work harder than humanly possible. In 1872 Henry Lloyd, a future Progressive said, “…he wanted power above all things, but ‘power unpoised by the presence of obligation’” (Mowry, 257). People back then believed that the power of the government was obligating them to unsafe, unregulated, and almost impossible labor. The middle class was fighting for a similar but larger cause. They were fighting for regulation in monopoly for big businesses. Tom Johnson believed, “that the law could be so drawn that men would be able ‘to get’ only the amount ‘they earned’” (Mowry, 260). Johnson believed that there should be a law that determined a person’s character and whether or not they deserve the money that they have. Progressives, according to Mowry, believed that the economic laws already in place were only “artificial arrangements” designed to be changed at any time. As Kolko stated, “Regulation itself was controlled by leaders of the regulated industry, and directed …show more content…
As time went on businessmen realized that if they to matters into their own hands things would started getting out of hand. Businessmen soon understood that, “Only the national Government could rationalize the economy” (Kolko, 22). Overtime the businessmen were begging for help from the government to regulate other industries and the monopoly they controlled. Although, “It was not the existence of the monopoly that caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it,” this caused many businessmen to grow angry (Kolko, …show more content…
Huthmacher looked at the Era from the lower class view, Mowry looked at it from the middle class view, and Kolko looked at it from the businessman and political view. I personally thought that Mowry’s view on the Progressive Era should more of the truth than the other historians. He talked about the middle class and the reforms they instituted into the government by being activist in daily life. He talked about the differences in races as being, “…separated by two oceans from in the inferior races and by an instinctive race and revulsion to cross breeding that marks the American wherever he is found,” he goes on to saying that this division causes panic in labor (Mowry,
Huthmacher and Mowry had a different view of who they thought Progressives were. Huthmacher believed, “Urban lower class provided active, numerically strong, and politically necessary force for reform”. He also stated the urban lower-class was accountable for the majority of change because they are the ones that were affected the most. They were the ones that lived in the depths of the city and experienced the true effects of the government not being involved. Mowry believed that wealthy and the more educated of the middle class were the progressives. This consensus was the most popular in historian’s views. Mowry discuses that in middle class there are three different sub-divisions “those who had more money than was good for them, who had just enough, those who had much less than was morally desirable”. Mowry discussed that the people who had “just enough” were the loudest in politics and social reforms. This division between middle class caused the problems that led the Progressives to seek government help. The Progressives represented the people who needed a change in government and wanted to live in a financially stable and safe economy. People of the lower-class Progressives were fighting for “workmen’s compensation, widows’ pensions, wages and hour’s legislation, factory safety legislation…” and many other laws (Huthmacher, 13). They wanted to make sure that the lower-class people were getting treated fairly at work. Many times in the work place men and women felt like they were being pushed to work harder than humanly possible. In 1872 Henry Lloyd, a future Progressive said, “…he wanted power above all things, but ‘power unpoised by the presence of obligation’” (Mowry, 257). People back then believed that the power of the government was obligating them to unsafe, unregulated, and almost impossible labor. The middle class was fighting for a similar but larger cause. They were fighting for regulation in monopoly for big businesses. Tom Johnson believed, “that the law could be so drawn that men would be able ‘to get’ only the amount ‘they earned’” (Mowry, 260). Johnson believed that there should be a law that determined a person’s character and whether or not they deserve the money that they have. Progressives, according to Mowry, believed that the economic laws already in place were only “artificial arrangements” designed to be changed at any time. As Kolko stated, “Regulation itself was controlled by leaders of the regulated industry, and directed …show more content…
As time went on businessmen realized that if they to matters into their own hands things would started getting out of hand. Businessmen soon understood that, “Only the national Government could rationalize the economy” (Kolko, 22). Overtime the businessmen were begging for help from the government to regulate other industries and the monopoly they controlled. Although, “It was not the existence of the monopoly that caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it,” this caused many businessmen to grow angry (Kolko, …show more content…
Huthmacher looked at the Era from the lower class view, Mowry looked at it from the middle class view, and Kolko looked at it from the businessman and political view. I personally thought that Mowry’s view on the Progressive Era should more of the truth than the other historians. He talked about the middle class and the reforms they instituted into the government by being activist in daily life. He talked about the differences in races as being, “…separated by two oceans from in the inferior races and by an instinctive race and revulsion to cross breeding that marks the American wherever he is found,” he goes on to saying that this division causes panic in labor (Mowry,