Glided Age – American Disasters

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

Like Elcaldwell mentioned, all three articles read examine the ways in which we analysis/categorize history and the lenses through which we examine it. Rebecca Edwards, of Vassar College, passionately contributes to the thoughtful discussion that we have been having as a class about whether the label of “Gilded Age” is appropriate and just for what actually happened during the time period we are discussing. In the editor’s note of the “Forum: Should we abolish the ‘Gilded Age’”, she argues, as many in our class stated, that the most prominent Gilded Age stereotypes and historical assumptions do not rightly characterize the era. To wit, she “draws on the political trends and movements and policy innovations of those decades” and uproots the influences of other popular events like the Populist Party, the American Farmer’s Alliance, the Interstate Commerce Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and muckraking journalism.

Edwards’ argument regarding historicization of the Gilded Age is one of strength and valid historical backing, and I don’t seek to reject her interpretation out of hand; but, I disagree with her determination to abolish the Gilded Age as a separate period. As the editor’s note explains, her stance is part of a wider, more recent trend toward examining 1870-1920 as a single, unique period and possibly coining it the “long progressive era.” I completely agree with ElCaldwell’s assumption that that her frustration with existing perspectives on the Gilded Age comes from teachers and students, not from historians. The common high school textbook or lesson plan from high school teachers usually wants to hit the huge history events before and after the Gilded Age and skims the time period by unfortunately, using terms that now drive the popular perception of the Gilded Age as one of pure corruption, crony capitalism and Jim Crow. Yet, even with these possibly misinformed high school textbooks, Edward’s argument for a prolonged progressive era I believe falls short in comparison to Richard Schneirov’s argument in “Thoughts on Periodizing the Gilded Age: Capital Accumulation, Society, and Politics, 1873-1898.” Detailing a case for the distinct period of the Gilded Age, Schneirov, in my opinion, provides us with a more convincing argument to label the Gilded Age as a distinct period of its own that has very distinctive characteristics. I felt that Scheirnov’s essay was more valid than Edward’s as it used numerous historiographical evidence to support his claim for the periodization of the Gilded Age. Because this blog post does not allow me to go into further detail, our next assignment regarding a historiography, I will expand upon the great historiographical example by Scheirnov. Along with his examination of recent work and supporting evidence of periodization, Scheirnov briefly explains his opinion on the beginning date of this period and the differing views surrounding this seemingly unimportant but extremely interesting periodization factor. This possible small scale difference opens up the flood gates for a bigger question and a historiographical analysis of the start and finish of the Gilded 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.

Tag: Glided Age

Its More Distinctive Than Some Think

The Hollow Men: Defending the Term “Glided Age”