Progressive Era – American Disasters

March 12, 2014December 16, 2020

Bouncing Back

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

Blog Post 7 (for Thursday, 3/12)

In the aftermath of the Johnstown flood, the surviving inhabitants of Johnstown reacted much more methodically than I had imagined they would, considering how traumatic the event was. They were preoccupied with establishing order, and with conducting the business of rebuilding in a disciplined manner.

Almost immediately, the survivors gathered to elect temporary leadership; Arthur Moxham and his partner Tom Johnson were chosen. Under their guidance, committees were formed to gather food and drinkable water, as well as to locate other survivors and gather the dead. These actions represent an interesting contradiction, however— while food and water were pressing deficiencies, and other survivors ought to be sought out, what practical use does a body count have? None, other than to quantify the destruction of the flood.

And even though collecting and observing the brutalized bodies of their neighbors was an emotionally demanding task, it was done with organization and careful planning. The dead were carried back to established morgues, where they were either identified, or categorized with extreme detail. Record entries describe their gender, height, weight, age, hair, dress, and the items they carried. Furthermore, graves were dug rather unnecessarily for each of the deceased, despite the trouble.

I would have expected more looting and robbery, a greater sense of religiosity, and an increase in personal interests as opposed to community interests amongst the survivors. McCullough mentions some of this, but mostly emphasizes a much more uplifting narrative. In the aftermath of the flood, individuals were inclined to cooperate, much like the cogs of the industrial machines they had once operated. Furthermore, Molly describes how members of the press and other visitors came from all around to assist in the relief effort while compiling their stories. I can only wonder whether the sense of community and desire for order that these individuals showed, even after having been reduced to utter chaos, was particular to those who lived during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

January 22, 2014December 16, 2020

Defining the “Gilded Age”

Although I like what the small amount of Urban History that I’ve studied, I think James Connolly has the weakest argument from the three readings. I didn’t see anything more than theories until he finally used the example of the role of the Irish-Catholics in the twin cities and how they affected the history of the two cities differently. I also come from the predisposition that Urban History tends to study more effect than cause.

Both Edwards and Schneirov, I believe, have stronger arguments than Connolly. I like that Schneirov combines the social, political, and capital effects on the history of the time, and I think he properly addresses areas of cause and affect that are essential to studying the time period, and he states that his opinion on what the period encompasses is just that, an opinion. I especially like how he emphasizes the importance of capitalism during this time; neither of the other two talk in as great of detail about it as he does. Unlike ajpignone, the jury is still out for me on whether or not Edwards ideas of including the Gilded Age with the Progressive Era. I will definitely have to research further on this specific argument to make my decision, but I think that she has a very strong argument. She gives multiple examples of progression during the Gilded Age. My predisposition to the time period is that it should be distinct from the Progressive Era, so the strength or weakness of the argument does not correlate with how I originally felt on the subject, unlike how I felt about Connolly’s essay.

January 22, 2014December 16, 2020

Its More Distinctive Than Some Think

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.

January 20, 2014December 16, 2020

A Crucible of Fire: Interpreting the “Gilded Age” and Characterizing Its Disasters

Just as last week’s readings approached disasters, our readings for Tuesday’s class examine the “Gilded Age” and approach it generally, attempting to characterize the period and, in doing so, look beyond its materialism and superficiality. As Sarah addressed in her post, Charles Calhoun adopts this approach in his analysis of the period and suggests that in the context of US history it was a time of “substantial accomplishment,” when advancements in politics and pop culture coincided with urbanization and economic development (3). Indeed, as Sarah writes, the period was “not as gilded as it seems.” But perhaps even more boldly than Calhoun, Rebecca Edwards advocates for the period’s significance and, one might say, preeminence in New Spirits. The “Gilded Age,” she insists, was not merely a time of greed, inequality, and other ills of so-called unfettered capitalism, but an “Early Progressive Era,” the “starting point for modern America” (5). She notes, like Calhoun, that alongside the emergence of globalism and development of capitalism, the United States underwent a period of immense change, evolving into a more egalitarian democracy and fostering a democratic culture. But for Edwards, the period was not just one of progress. As she writes, the United States emerged from a “crucible of fire” in early twentieth century, fraught as much with greed and corruption as with disaster (1).

So, how might these affirmative views of the “Gilded Age” influence our interpretation of its disasters?

As our reading last week noted, disasters serve as “daily reminders of the limitations . . . of modernity” (Hewitt 2). Just as they exploit weaknesses in infrastructure and society, they can and often do illicit positive change to mend those weaknesses. And it would seem that this is especially the case in an evolving society, where progress might not begin with disaster—it’s already begun—but instead simply alters its course. Now, if Edwards’ and Calhoun’s assessments of the “Gilded Age” are accurate and the period truly was one of immense progress, I think we ought to evaluate the period’s disasters with its progressive ends in mind, analyzing the way in which disasters challenged the progressive course of the United States. The pitfall of this type of interpretation, of course, would be stooping to a teleological history, in which we interpret disasters as merely the causes of events, not as important events in and of themselves. But I would like to pose the question to the class: Should we interpret disasters in the “Gilded Age” as causes of the Progressive Era or as the results of a progressing era?

In his post last week, Price addressed and critiqued what Bergman described as the “utility” of disaster, suggesting that Bergman perhaps “jumps the gun” in considering disasters useful. And while I agree with him to some extent—it’s critical to recognize the deadly tolls of disaster—I think that we ought to study disasters with intention of uncovering their useful results. Not only does this approach attempt to understand disasters in their context, but recognizes both the momentary and long-lasting effects of those disasters. I think Edwards would agree with this approach as well. After all, she admits that even in this “Early Progressive Era,” it was the “fires” of the age that forged the tools of progress.

January 17, 2014December 16, 2020

Gilded Age Myths Versus Realities: A Matter of Perspective

In “Moving Beyond Stereotype of the Gilded Age,” Charles W. Calhoun takes issue with the lack of acknowledgement that the Gilded Age receives in the classroom, where he believes it is written off as a time of corruption and speculation, among other atrocities. Rather, he makes the case, it was a time of intense urbanization, industrialization, cultural broadening, and increases in regulation.

The “Introduction” to The Gilded Age and Progressive Era : A Student Companion offers a more conventional interpretation of the Gilded Age, though the factual differences between this and Calhoun’s interpretations are minimal.

Calhoun is not incorrect: the Gilded Age was not a cultural wasteland (though I admit, Twain is the only name I recognize from the list Calhoun unspools, not that I am particularly cultured), nor was it a time in which no attempts were made to address contemporary problems. The ICC and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act are good examples, though the latter was weak enough that it was strengthened in 1914.

The Gilded Age is not overlooked because nothing occurred, but rather because many teachers likely believe that there is more to learn from other periods. Indeed, the rampant capitalism of the Gilded Age seems most relevant in counterpoint to the regulatory expansion of the Progressive Era, since the level of government involvement currently exercised across American life more resembles the reformed than the laissez-faire. On the other side of the Gilded Age, Calhoun can hardly disagree that the Civil War was likely more significant than the Gilded Age.

Likewise, Calhoun takes issue with the ways in which the Gilded Age is perceived. I doubt historians and teachers would disagree with his characterization of the Age, and yet the views of the past are always shaped by the present. The Gilded Age surfaces in our collective memory because of the ways in which it was different from the present and recent past, not the ways in which it was similar. Modern American consumers may have gained tremendously in buying power during the Gilded Age, but they benefitted more during the 1950s; there was no dearth of exceptional artists during the Gilded Age, but since we have had Hemingway, Steinbeck, the Beats, the Harlem Renaissance, Elvis, and cinema, to name a few; Republicans and Democrats may have had substantial political differences during the Gilded Age, but so do they today, and frequently we do not see those difference play out in terms of policy. On the contrary, we do not have the monopolies, the child labor, as much urban squalor (though still significant amounts), and as brutal a form of capitalism as the Gilded Age held. Therefore, those are the elements for which the Gilded Age is remembered, though that suggests more about 2014 than 1884.

With regard to Thursday’s readings, I strongly agree with Price’s assertion that Bergman “jumps the gun” on calling disasters useful. They certainly reveal the problems in society, and allow for compelling debate on the issues of the day. Yet, nothing useful comes with so high a cost that, given the choice, one would never use it. To call it useful is to approach a disaster in a completely academic way, without humanity. And, maybe that is a useful exercise. All the better that we study the disasters of the Gilded Age, for I could explain a Katrina victim the ways in which his or her suffering was ‘useful.’