The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27


Episode 27: Progressive Era Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse
U.S. history, and today we’re gonna talk about Progressives. No Stan Progressives.
Yes. You know, like these guys who used to want
to bomb the means of production, but also less radical Progressives.
Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Are we talking about, like, tumblr progressive where it’s half
discussions of misogyny and half high-contrast images of pizza? Because if so, I can get
behind that. Me from the past, your anachronism is showing.
Your Internet was green letters on a black screen.
But no, The Progressive Era was not like tumblr, however I will argue that it did indirectly
make tumblr and therefore JLaw gifsets possible, so that’s something.
So some of the solutions that progressives came up with to deal with issues of inequality
and injustice don’t seem terribly progressive today, and also it kinda overlapped with the
gilded age, and progressive implies, like, progress, presumably progress toward freedom
and justice, which is hard to argue about an era that involved one of the great restrictions
on freedom in American history, prohibition. So maybe we shouldn’t call it the Progressive
Era at all. I g–Stan, whatever, roll the intro.
Intro So, if the Gilded Age was the period when
American industrial capitalism came into its own, and people like Mark Twain began to criticize
its associated problems, then the Progressive era was the age in which people actually tried
to solve those problems through individual and group action.
As the economy changed, Progressives also had to respond to a rapidly changing political
system. The population of the U.S. was growing and
its economic power was becoming ever more concentrated. And sometimes, Progressives
responded to this by opening up political participation and sometimes by trying to restrict
the vote. The thing is, broad participatory democracy
doesn’t always result in effective government–he said, sounding like the Chinese national Communist
Party. And that tension between wanting to have government
for, of, and by the people and wanting to have government that’s, like, good at governing
kind of defined the Progressive era. And also our era.
But progressives were most concerned with the social problems that revolved around industrial
capitalist society. And most of these problems weren’t new by 1900, but some of the responses
were. Companies and, later, corporations had a problem
that had been around at least since the 1880s: they needed to keep costs down and profits
high in a competitive market. And one of the best ways to do this was to keep wages low,
hours long, and conditions appalling: your basic house-elf situation.
Just kidding, house elves didn’t get wages. Also, by the end of the 19th century, people
started to feel like these large, monopolistic industrial combinations, the so-called trusts,
were exerting too much power over people’s lives.
The 1890s saw federal attempts to deal with these trusts, such as the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act, but overall, the Federal Government wasn’t where most progressive changes were made.
For instance, there was muckraking, a form of journalism in which reporters would find
some muck and rake it. Mass circulation magazines realized they could
make money by publishing exposés of industrial and political abuse, so they did.
Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? I bet it involves muck. The rules here are
simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document.
I’m either correct or I get shocked. “Let a man so much as scrape his finger
pushing a truck in the pickle-rooms, and all the joints in his fingers might be eaten by
the acid, one by one. Of the butchers and floormen, the beef-boners and trimmers, and
all those who used knives, you could scarcely find a person who had the use of his thumb;
time and time again the base of it had been slashed, till it was a mere lump of flesh
against which the man pressed the knife to hold it. … They would have no nails – they
had worn them off pulling hides.” Wow. Well now I am hyper-aware of and grateful
for my thumbs. They are just in excellent shape. I am so glad, Stan, that I am not a
beef-boner at one of the meat-packing factories written about in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.
No shock for me! Oh Stan, I can only imagine how long and hard
you’ve worked to get the phrase “beef-boner” into this show. And you finally did it. Congratulations.
By the way, just a little bit of trivia: The Jungle was the first book I ever read that
made me vomit. So that’s a review. I don’t know if it’s positive, but there you go.
Anyway, at the time, readers of The Jungle were more outraged by descriptions of rotten
meat than by the treatment of meatpacking workers: The Jungle led to the Pure Food and
Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. That’s pretty cool for Upton Sinclair, although
my books have also led to some federal legislation, such as the HAOPT, which officially declared
Hazel and Augustus the nation’s OTP. So, to be fair, writers had been describing
the harshness of industrial capitalism for decades, so muckraking wasn’t really that
new, but the use of photography for documentation was.
Lewis Hine, for instance, photographed child laborers in factories and mines, bringing
Americans face to face with the more than 2 million children under the age of 15 working
for wages. And Hine’s photos helped bring about laws that limited child labor.
But even more important than the writing and photographs and magazines when it came to
improving conditions for workers was Twitter … what’s that? There was no twitter? Still?
What is this 1812? Alright, so apparently still without Twitter,
workers had to organize into unions to get corporations to reduce hours and raise their
pay. Also some employers started to realize on
their own that one way to mitigate some of the problems of industrialization was to pay
workers better, like in 1914, Henry Ford paid his workers an average of $5 per day, unheard
of at the time. . Whereas today I pay Stan and Danica 3x that
and still they whine. Ford’s reasoning was that better-paid workers
would be better able to afford the Model Ts that they were making. And indeed, Ford’s
annual output rose from 34,000 cars to 730,000 between 1910 and 1916, and the price of a
Model T dropped from $700 to $316. Still, Henry Ford definitely forgot to be
awesome sometimes; he was anti-Semitic, he used spies in his factories, and he named
his child Edsel. Also like most employers at the turn of the
century, he was virulently anti-union. So, while the AFL was organizing the most
privileged industrial workers, another union grew up to advocate for rights for a larger
swath of the workforce, especially the immigrants who dominated unskilled labor: The International
Workers of the World. They were also known as the Wobblies, and
they were founded in 1905 to advocate for “every wage-worker, no matter what his religion,
fatherland or trade,” and not, as the name Wobblies suggests, just those fans of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey.
The Wobblies were radical socialists; ultimately they wanted to see capitalism and the state
disappear in revolution. Now, most progressives didn’t go that far,
but some, following the ideas of Henry George, worried that economic progress could produce
a dangerous unequal distribution of wealth that could only be cured by … taxes.
But, more Progressives were influenced by Simon W. Patten who prophesied that industrialization
would bring about a new civilization where everyone would benefit from the abundance
and all the leisure time that all these new labor-saving devices could bring.
This optimism was partly spurred by the birth of a mass consumption society. I mean, Americans
by 1915 could purchase all kinds of new-fangled devices, like washing machines, or vacuum
cleaners, automobiles, record players. It’s worth underscoring that all this happened
in a couple generations: I mean, in 1850, almost everyone listened to music and washed
their clothes in nearly the same way that people did 10,000 years ago. And then BOOM.
And for many progressives, this consumer culture, to quote our old friend Eric Foner, “became
the foundation for a new understanding of freedom as access to the cornucopia of goods
made available by modern capitalism.” And this idea was encouraged by new advertising
that connected goods with freedom, using “liberty” as a brand name or affixing the Statue of
Liberty to a product. By the way, Crash Course is made exclusively in the United States of
America, the greatest nation on earth ever. (Libertage.)
That’s a lie, of course, but you’re allowed to lie in advertising.
But in spite of this optimism, most progressives were concerned that industrial capitalism,
with its exploitation of labor and concentration of wealth, was limiting, rather than increasing
freedom, but depending on how you defined “freedom,” of course.
Industrialization created what they referred to as “the labor problem” as mechanization
diminished opportunities for skilled workers and the supervised routine of the factory
floor destroyed autonomy. The scientific workplace management advocated
by efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor required rigid rules and supervision in order to heighten
worker productivity. So if you’ve ever had a job with a defined
number of bathroom breaks, that’s why. Also “Taylorism” found its way into classrooms;
and anyone who’s had to sit in rows for 45 minute periods punctuated by factory-style
bells knows that this atmosphere is not particularly conducive to a sense of freedom.
Now this is a little bit confusing because while responding to worker exploitation was
part of the Progressive movement, so was Taylorism itself because it was an application of research,
observation, and expertise in response to the vexing problem of how to increase productivity.
And this use of scientific experts is another hallmark of the Progressive era, one that
usually found its expression in politics. American Progressives, like their counterparts
in the Green Sections of Not-America, sought government solutions to social problems.
Germany, which is somewhere over here, pioneered “social legislation” with its minimum
wage, unemployment insurance and old age pension laws, but the idea that government action
could address the problems and insecurities that characterized the modern industrial world,
also became prominent in the United States. And the notion that an activist government
could enhance rather than threaten people’s freedom was something new in America.
Now, Progressives pushing for social legislation tended to have more success at the state and
local level, especially in cities, which established public control over gas and water and raised
taxes to pay for transportation and public schools.
Whereas federally the biggest success was, like, Prohibition, which, you know, not that
successful. But anyway, if all that local collectivist
investment sounds like Socialism, it kind of is.
I mean, by 1912 the Socialist Party had 150,000 members and had elected scores of local officials
like Milwaukee mayor Emil Seidel. Some urban progressives even pushed to get
rid of traditional democratic forms altogether. A number of cities were run by commissions
of experts or city managers, who would be chosen on the basis of some demonstrated expertise
or credential rather than their ability to hand out turkeys at Christmas or find jobs
for your nephew’s sister’s cousin. Progressive editor Walter Lippman argued for
applying modern scientific expertise to solve social problems in his 1914 book Drift and
Mastery, writing that scientifically trained experts “could be trusted more fully than
ordinary citizens to solve America’s deep social problems.”
This tension between government by experts and increased popular democratic participation
is one of the major contradictions of the Progressive era. The 17th amendment allowed
for senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by state legislatures,
and many states adopted primaries to nominate candidates, again taking power away from political
parties and putting it in the hands of voters. And some states, particularly western ones
like California adopted aspects of even more direct democracy, the initiative, which allowed
voters to put issues on the ballot, and the referendum, which allows them to vote on laws
directly. And lest you think that more democracy is
always good, I present you with California. But many Progressives wanted actual policy
made by experts who knew what was best for the people, not the people themselves.
And despite primaries in direct elections of senators it’s hard to argue that the
Progressive Era was a good moment for democratic participation, since many Progressives were
only in favor of voting insofar as it was done by white, middle class, Protestant voters.
Alright. Let’s Go to the Thought Bubble. Progressives limited immigrants’ participation
in the political process through literacy tests and laws requiring people to register
to vote. Voter registration was supposedly intended to limit fraud and the power of political
machines. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar, but it actually just suppressed voting generally.
Voting gradually declined from 80% of male Americans voting in the 1890s to the point
where today only about 50% of eligible Americans vote in presidential elections.
But an even bigger blow to democracy during the Progressive era came with the Jim Crow
laws passed by legislatures in southern states, which legally segregated the South. First,
there was the deliberate disenfranchisement of African Americans. The 15th amendment made
it illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude
but said nothing about the ability to read, so many Southern states instituted literacy
requirements. Other states added poll taxes, requiring people to pay to vote, which effectively
disenfranchised large numbers of African American people, who were disproportionately poor.
The Supreme Court didn’t help: In 1896, it made one of its most famous bad decisions,
Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregation in public accommodations, in Homer Plessy’s
case a railroad car, did not violate the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection clause.
As long as black railroad cars were equal to white ones, it was A-OK to have duplicate
sets of everything. Now, creating two sets of equal quality of everything would get really
expensive, so Southern states didn’t actually do it. Black schools, public restrooms, public
transportation opportunities–the list goes on and on–would definitely be separate, and
definitely not equal. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Now, of course, as
we’ve seen Progressive ideas inspired a variety of responses, both for Taylorism and
against it, both for government by experts and for direct democracy.
Similarly, in the Progressive era, just as the Jim Crow laws were being passed, there
were many attempts to improve the lives of African Americans.
The towering figure in this movement to “uplift” black southerners was Booker T. Washington,
a former slave who became the head of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, a center for
vocational education. And Washington urged southern black people
to emphasize skills that could make them successful in the contemporary economy.
The idea was that they would earn the respect of white people by demonstrating their usefulness
and everyone would come to respect each other through the recognition of mutual dependence
while continuing to live in separate social spheres.
But Washington’s accommodationist stance was not shared by all African Americans. WEB
DuBois advocated for full civil and political rights for black people and helped to found
the NAACP, which urged African Americans to fight for
their rights through “persistent, manly agitation.”
So I wanted to talk about the Progressive Era today not only because it shows up on
a lot of tests, but because Progressives tried to tackle many of the issues that we face
today, particularly concerning immigration and economic justice, and they used some of
the same methods that we use today: organization, journalistic exposure, and political activism.
Now, we may use tumblr or tea party forums, but the same concerns motivate us to work
together. And just as today, many of their efforts were not successful because of the
inherent difficulty in trying to mobilize very different interests in a pluralistic
nation. In some ways their platforms would have been
better suited to an America that was less diverse and complex. But it was that very
diversity and complexity that gave rise and still gives rise to the urge toward progress
in the first place. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week.
Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith
Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history
teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café.
Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest captions in comments
where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of
historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. If you like
it, and if you’re watching the credits you probably do, make sure you’re subscribed.
And as we say in my hometown don’t forget to be awesome…That was more dramatic than
it sounded. Progressive Era –

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *