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
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 13th Amendment. (466) Progressive federal law simply stood no chance of making significant inroads before the liberalization of the Supreme Court in the 20th 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.