Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Edwards, Progressive, CultureThe discussion throughout Tuesday’s class offered a unique opportunity to hear everyone’s unique definitions and made me question this preconceived notion of the Gilded and Progressive divide. With each point made, my opinions swayed regarding whether these eras should be reclassified, altered, or eliminated. By the time I exited class, I was vehemently persuaded by the arguments of corruption, economic change, political turmoil, and the distinction between Progressive Reform and Gilded Age failures. I left believing that the Gilded Age demanded the classification between 1877-1898. However after reading the works from Edwards, Schneirov, and Connolly, my thought process has taken another drastic turn, as now my belief generally concurs more with Edwards than Schneirov. This assigned reading offered an interesting mix of two contrasting opinions, in Edwards and Schneirov, and a third, in Connolly, that easily could be argued with either side.
Let me begin with addressing Price’s critique of Edwards. Price raises some very valid points that Edward’s is too positive, too reactionary, and that she generalizes much of her argument. It is true that much of political legislation passed in the Gilded Age (Sherman and Pendleton) does not effect change until the liberation of the Court at the turn of the century. However, I believe this is Edward’s foundational argument. Changes enacted during the “Gilded Age” often blend their way into the “Progressive Era.” The slow changes to law, social structure, and even the economy begin in the Gilded Age and do not rapidly accelerate with Roosevelt. Instead the changes made before the turn become more enforced and even expand after Roosevelt. Schneirov description on how the shift to capitalism should be the defining factor in the era split is too narrow-minded. The economic and political changes in the late 19th century are only two factors in the changing nation. One must look at the cultural changes, the changes in space (urbanization), and characterization of their citizens, as key era shifting measurements.
Edwards cunningly provides enough detail that undermines the generally accepted split in eras. Simply she suggests that there is no clear divide because progressive reform could be traced earlier than 1898. She is very accurate when mentioning that movements started in the “Gilded Age” actually develop further in the “Progressive Era.” She mentions the Chinese Exclusion (p.466), Sherman (p.466) journals/writings of the 1890’s (p.467), Hull House movement (p.467), Women’s movement (p.468), and political reform (p.468), as examples of progressive type reform that started before the 20th century. My only argument against her is that instead of labeling these as early Progressive reforms, she should classify them as steps towards change. Movements like unions, women’s suffrage, and the temperance started in the last quarter of the 19th century and spanned through World War 1. America should not be defined by one specific category (as Schneirov seems to suggest with his capitalism argument) in shifting from one era to another. Instead eras shift through entire countries. Yes there was more economic reform pre-20th century, yet the religious, social, cultural, technological reform that started right after Reconstruction expands all the way until the Great Depression. I think Connolly’s work on urbanization supports this theory for his article combines the two eras and implies that the unique development of each city spans from after the Civil War and has no definitive end. If Eras are complete changes, than I agree with Edwards than the Gilded and Progressive Eras must be combined because the entire country does not revolutionize until the New Deal. By having a combined era, historians could group the developments of the entire country and explain success and failures as a means for the entire progressive change.