Edwards – American Disasters

February 17, 2014December 16, 2020

The Wedge

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

In Chapters 3 and 4 of New Spirits, Rebecca Edwards presents two distinct accounts of the Gilded Age economy. One depicts a period of unbridled economic growth. In this period, titans of industry accumulated vast fortunes and middle class professionals carved out positions in the growing economy. The plight of the working class offers a sharp contrast to the opulence of the higher classes. It seems difficult to reconcile these two competing narratives. However, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

This is where Henry George’s wedge construct becomes useful. Edwards adopts the idea of a wedge separating Americans to reinforce the notion that Gilded Age was a period of sharp divisions between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. Factory workers worked in unsafe conditions for longer hours, while socialites in New York held extravagant parties at their million dollar homes. The wedge is evident here.

Income inequality appears to be a central element of Chapter 4. Edwards discusses the political battles fought over currency that further strengthened the socio-economic divide. The discussion of class division in this section is very similar to current political discussions. Both time periods feature a widely held belief that industrialists and bankers are responsible for an economic downturn. Similarly, both periods have unequal wealth accumulation at the top. The belief that this inequality is wrong is a facet of both time periods. The time period in the chapter was obviously worse than the current situation, but it is useful to note how long this argument has prevailed.

Whether discussing money or occupation during the Gilded Age, the notion of a wedge separating the upper and lower classes is an invaluable explanation for the time period.

February 17, 2014December 16, 2020

The Power of Hardship to Unite

Chapters three and four of New Spirits present an interesting, although stereotypical account of the Gilded Age, examining ‘work’ and ‘money.’ The overall impression that these chapters present is one of hardship for the masses, from brakemen to cowboys. This impression coincides with the traditional reading of the Gilded Age as a time of corruption and big money, which directly contradicts Charles W. Calhoun’s call for a reexamination and reevaluation of the true legacy of the Gilded Age in his piece, “Moving Beyond Stereotypes of the Gilded Age”. Interestingly, this is a reading that Rebecca Edwards, the author of New Spirits, also calls for in her introduction. However, the way in which the chapters on work and money are presented adhere to the reading that she previously criticized.

For another class this week, I read primary source accounts of women’s lives in Germany during the 1920’s. What struck me was how much this reading echoed the New Spirits reading, providing key insight into daily life in the factory. Although Edwards repeatedly mentions the greater working conditions that Europeans faced in comparison to their American counterparts, the primary source accounts that I read told of hard work, long hours, and little pay. The comparison that I have made between early twentieth century Germany and America argue for similarities that unite beyond boarders and oceans, that unite people in the human experience.

Although contemporaries were unable to see or unwilling to act on similar experiences beyond international boarders, the power of hardship and shared experience to unite is prevalent within the United States, in the Gilded Age and today. Edwards talks about the mutual benefit associations that workers formed (67), as well as taverns as “informal working man’s clubs” (92). This can be extended to the booster vision of the Chicago fire, and their attempts to portray the fire as a uniting event. While it may have been exaggerated, there is usually some truth in every story. The shared traumatic event of the fire brought together the city, at least to some extent. To extend this to the present day, I will focus on the example that Nate brought up in class the other day about the snow storm that crippled Atlanta: while it was a hardship on everyone involved, the people pulled together and helped out. The power of shared experience to unite is strong, and has been traditionally under estimated.

I agree whole-heartedly with Nate’s point that “primary sources give us a perceptive account of historical events,” and I think the example that I have brought up on the similarities that were highlighted in the primary sources nicely illustrates this point.

January 21, 2014December 16, 2020

The Hollow Men: Defending the Term “Glided Age”

When reading Rebecca Edwards’ New Spirits: Americans in the “Glided Age” 1865-1905, I couldn’t help noticing the awkwardness of how she utilized the term “Glided Age” in the title of her work while rejecting the use of the term in the book’s introduction (page 7). Her first footnote in “Politics, Social Movements, and the Periodization of U.S. History”, however, acknowledges this fact, noting how the Oxford University Press stressed that she include the term in her title. This acknowledgment alone is a glaring example of the divide historians have over the issue. Some historians believe that the term “Glided Age” under-represents the reform efforts from both private and public interests in the late 19th century. Edwards certainly falls into this group, as her “Politics” article claims that the epoch should be re-termed the “Early Progressive Era.” (473)

As a historiographical analysis, Edwards’ work examines other secondary sources and their responses to the how the “Glided Age” should be memorialized. Emily notes how her teacher tended to gloss over the period as an insignificant lull between brighter portions of American history. In this view, it was a low point and learning period before the improvements and reforms of the Roosevelt Administration. Edwards, however, focuses on the positive trends gained from the era. Government made its first forays into business regulation and consumer protection. Journalists and activists established campaigns to prevent excessive poverty and poor living standards. Labor and agricultural organizations rose up to challenge the robber barons. To Edwards, the “Early Progressive Era” was instrumental in later governmental attempts to actively improve the lives of common individuals.

Unfortunately, Edwards’ argument falls flat for many reasons. Primarily, she focuses on reactions to the “Glided Age” rather than on results. Her examples of “progressivism” failed to actually yield progress. For example, she offers “the Populist Party” as a example of Glided Age progressivism but fails to explain its inability to impact Washington politics (note William Jennings Bryan’s three unsuccessful presidential bids). She contends that the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) was a cornerstone in governmental regulation, despite the awkward fact that it did not successfully challenge a monopoly until 1902 (for twelve years it was used exclusively against unions). Even her use of the Pendleton Act as evidence of “progressive politics” is ironic, considering that George Pendleton was one of the most vocal critics of the 13^th Amendment. (466) Progressive federal law simply stood no chance of making significant inroads before the liberalization of the Supreme Court in the 20^th century. Therefore, I believe Edwards’ definition of the Glided Age is absolutely correct- on the cover of New Spirits, that is. The empty space behind the golden covering remained hollow until the rise of Roosevelt, even if a majority of the populace acknowledged the hollowness.