Who Was The Greatest Contributor To The Progressive Movement?

Who was responsible for the push for reform at the turn of the twentieth century, which spawned the Progressive Movement?  It can be argued that middle class men and women, as well as, the lower working classes contributed to the Progressive movement, but just how equally they contributed still remains unsure.

Maureen A. Flanagan, in her article titled “Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Woman’s City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” points out the political reform ideas presented by the Woman’s City Club during the Progressive Era, in comparison to the men’s City Club. The women’s reformist ideas from that time, such as “municipal housekeeping,” pressed for the well-being of all citizens. The men’s City Club, on the other hand, more closely aligned with the mindset of running a business and making a profit.[1] Could women’s reformist clubs have instigated the Progressive movement that spread across the nation or were the men’s clubs responsible?

Shelton Stromquist, in an article titled “The Crucible of Class: Cleveland Politics and the Origins of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era,” points out the role of the working class in creating change at the municipal level. Did the “urban lower class,” through “labor conflicts”, such as riots and class struggles, cause the Progressive Movement to expand as suggested by Stromquist?[2]

Which group contributed the most? When it comes to the outcomes of the Progressive Movement, such as better working conditions, limits on big business, better educational systems, residential improvements, higher wages, etc., evidence can be found that all the groups mentioned above greatly contributed to the reformist cause. When Woodrow Wilson took office in 1912, his first priorities were business related (which emulated the City Club’s priorities for more efficient business) such as reforming the U.S. tax structure and passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Later Wilson’s focus shifted to social reform which helped relieve some of the “crushing elements” found in society (which most likely appealed to the lower-working classes and women reformists).[3]

It appears that all groups mentioned received a piece of the Progressive pie, and calculating the proportions of each is an extremely complex problem historian’s face. Stromquist points out, when referring to “contentious politics of reform,” historians have yet to produce accounts that are credible for review.[4] It is hard to make a final consensus when equally credible accounts are not yet found for all the groups.

1.       Maureen A. Flanagan, “Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Woman’s City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” in The American Historical Review, (October), Vol. 95, No. 4, (The University of  Chicago Press, 1990), pgs. 1032 – 1050.

2.       Shelton Stromquist, “The Crucible of Class: Cleveland Politics and the Origins of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era,” in Journal of Urban History, (January), Vol. 23, No. 2, (Sage Publications, Inc., 1997), pgs. 192-220.

3.       Brett Flehinger, The 1912 Election and the Power of Progressivism: A Brief History With Documents, (Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston/ New York, 2003), pgs. 59-61.

4.       Stromquist, pg 193.

Thomas Nast's Portrayal of Victoria Woodhull

February 17, 1872 in Harper’s Weekly

Cartoon A

Victoria Woodhull ran for the U.S. presidency in 1872, although she did not make it to the final round in the elections her attempt to run for office grabbed the attention of many in the American society--particularly since she advocated for woman’s suffrage and “free love;” the freedom to change marriage partners, as frequently and numerously one wished, without legal or economic obligations. Thomas Nast was one that recognized Woodhull’s accomplishments and publicized a depiction of her through a political cartoon in the Harper’s Weekly on February 17, 1872, nine months prior to the general elections. It is important to note that Ulysses Grant, who was well supported by Nast, won the presidential election.[1]

His political cartoon shows a well-dressed woman in black with satanic features (ram horns and gargoyle type wings), representing the devil’s wife, “Mrs. Satan.” Nast most likely is pointing out Woodhull’s past of not only divorcing her first husband but of the rumors that she had committed multiple affairs.[2] Woodhull is on a downward path which suggests that her morality in on the decline.  In the cartoon Woodhull is also very well dressed as well as head down a path that leads to mansion like buildings (as seen in the bottom right corner), this possibly relates to her financial success. In 1868 she met Cornelius Vanderbilt who helped Woodhull and her sister invest their money made from fortune telling in Wall Street, through which they later on opened up their own brokerage business.[3] In the background a tired, ragged woman is seen with a walking stick hiking up a steep rocky mountain side (headed the opposite direction as Woodhull). This woman is carrying a drinking husband on her back and has two children tied to her sides and one to her front. “Mrs. Satan” or Victoria Woodhull is motioning the woman to her sign that says “Be saved by Free Love.” This is ironic, since Woodhull’s first marriage experienced conflict due to her alcoholic husband. She had two children with her first husband before divorcing him in 1864.[4] The wording at the bottom includes the following captions, “Get Thee Behind Me, (Mrs) Satan” and “I’d rather travel the hardest path of matrimony than follow your footsteps.” Both of these religious phrases are found in the bible when Christ commands Satan to cease his temptations. Nast is clearly trying to warn the general public, particularly women, of the radical views or "evil snares" of Victoria Woodhull.

1.       David Leip, “1872 Presidential General Election Results,”(2012),  found at http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1872 (February 11, 2012).

2.       Harvard University Library Open Collections Program, “Victoria Woodhull (1838-1927),” at Women Working, 1800-1930, (The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2012), found at http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/woodhull.html (February 11, 2012).

3.       Jone Johnson Lewis, “ Victoria Woodhull: Spiritualist, Fortune-Teller, Stockbroker,” at About.com, Women’s History, (The New York Times Company, 2012), found at http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/woodhull.htm (February 11, 2012).

4.       Lewis.

Do "natural rights" exist?

I encounter the question of “rights” every day in my own home when interacting with my four year old daughter. She constantly questions, debates and tests my instructions and warnings as a parent to make sure it is conducive to what she thinks is fair. If I stay up late and watch a movie then she automatically believes she is entitled to do the same. I respect her for her endless questioning and debating, because, well here we go…I feel it is her “right” as a human being to question and understand why we do what we do. What I am leading to is….that if a four year old is trying to figure out the “rights” she feels she has and revolts if she thinks she has been treated unfairly, then I have to side with the Rousseau and Jefferson mindset that “natural rights” do exist. Actually let me rephrase that, I think we all naturally seek for these “natural rights” and strive to know what they are exactly. I personally feel that the ability to define, understand and live true to “natural rights” in a community, depends on the people themselves, that is, their ability to accept others as equals, work through problems affectively and treat others fairly.

With that said, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 sounded the claim that “natural, inalienable and sacred rights” existed for all men and that all “citizens have the right to take part” in government affairs and must be viewed as equal members.¹ When this claim was made, questions regarding the “natural rights” of religious groups, slaves and ex-slaves, the poor and women also arose. Duke Mathieu De Montmorency, prior to the drafting of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, advised that the declaration should be written in a “simple and precise” manner so as to be comprehended by all within its influence. The only objection he could think of was that most of the people at that time were “ignorant of this liberty” and did not realize “its extent and its product.”² Maybe De Montmorency did not fully realize “its extent and product.”

The jump from a French feudalistic society to a democracy did not ever really materialize. The new National Assembly of France debated extensively regarding who should or should not have equal citizenship rights. Those who were excessive in their opposing opinions or rose up in rebellion were harshly chastised, imprisoned or sentenced to die. Marquis de Condorcet in response to the idea of “universal rights,” strongly advocated for the freedom of slaves and women as equal members in society.³ He was later captured by the French government and imprisoned, where he later died. Olympe de Gouge, who wrote The Declaration of the Rights of Women in 1791, was beheaded in 1793.⁴  Vincent Oge, a mulatto slave owner, led a revolt in 1790 in Saint Dominigue for the equal rights of free blacks. Oge, along with the other mulatto leaders, were executed publicly.⁵  Marquis de Condorcet, Olympe de Gouges and Vincent Oge are just a few examples of what happened when the new French government did not approve with the peoples’ “natural right” to speak one’s mind or resist oppression. It appears that the “natural rights” they so boldly proclaimed applied primarily to the white, male landowners.

Lynn Hunt asks the question in relation to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of whether it was “only a viable basis for the government’s legitimacy, or did it only create unreasonable expectations in a society that could not immediately deliver on the promise of equality?”⁶ From the extensive debating and attempted applications that took place following its emergence, it appears that the French were serious about the idealistic notion of “natural rights”, but really bit off more than they could handle at that time.

1.       Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, in Lynn Hunt ed., The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History, (Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston/New York, 1996), pgs. 77-78.

2.       Duke Mathieu De Montmorency, (August 1, 1789), in Lynn Hunt ed., The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History, (Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston/New York, 1996), pgs. 73-75.

3.       Lynn Hunt ed., “Introduction,” The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History, (Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston/New York, 1996), pgs. 10-11.

4.       Hunt, pg. 27.

5.       Hunt, pg. 25.

6.       Hunt, pg. 14.

Olaudah Equiano's Origin???

It has been debated that Olaudah Equiano, author of the renowned narrative The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, was not born in Africa and that the life he described in his narrative, particularly his younger years, is untrue. This claim undermines the influential mission of the narrative he so boldly published in London in 1789. There are, however, many reasons to believe that Equiano, to the best of his ability, told the truth and that not only was he was born in Africa but he had real, distinct memories of his native land.

In his narrative, Equiano remembers distinct sounds, events, feelings and tastes that bring to life the reality of his experience as a child in Africa. When describing the native wine that his people brewed he explains how they would extract the juice from the tree and describes its sweet taste. He describes the fragrance that his people would use from a certain type of wood and how it diffused a “most powerful odour” when placed upon the fire.¹  He also shares a memory of a virgin of another tribe being killed in a great battle and how the arm was cut off and displayed in the market place as a trophy of their victory.² These are distinct, personal observations that relate to what Equiano experienced personally in Africa, they are not the customs of slaves born in European nations. His personal experience is further magnified when he describes the libation ceremony his mother held for her deceased mother. He describes the tomb, the sounds, the feelings and “terror of the scene.”³ It is unlikely that he would have any experience of this type of ceremony as a young slave in the Carolinas or elsewhere in Europe, where slaves most certainly had curfews and whose ancestors where very unlikely to have their own personal tombs.

He also describes his relationship with his sister as a deep realistic bond that he returns to throughout his narrative. The feelings and memories of holding to his sister and being torn from her side are described in a deep, personal manner.⁴ He then relates the convincing moment of surprise when they ran into each other once more before being torn from each other again. He references his hopes of seeing his sister years later, but to find it was but a mistake.⁶ How could a relationship that is deeply engrained in his memory take place in a false memory?

Vincent Carretta writes of the evidence that proves and disproves Equiano’s birth in Africa. He notes that there are records in the Carolinas that argue his birth to be in American in 1759. If this was the case, wouldn’t his sister’s records be there as well? It is hard to believe that Equaino would have gone so far as to create a fictional sister to prove his case. Carretta also gives the argument that the early of the narrative resembles other books and accounts given of Africa, so he could have just made it up.  Again, when reading his descriptions using his senses (sight, smell, sound and so on) his account does prove to be personal and unique in that sense. Another argument is Equaino’s motivations, in that he wanted to end the slave trade so badly that he took advantage of the distance between his actual birthplace and fact that people would probably not find out. This doesn’t seem realistic either, when readers take into account that Equiano sold his narrative to America as well, were his origins would have been known. Why would he take that risk?⁷

1.     Olaudah Equiano, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, (London, 1789), in Robert Allison ed., The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, Written by Himself, with Related Documents, Second Edition, (Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007). pg. 47.

2.     Equiano, pg. 50.

3.     pg. 51.

4.     pg. 58.

5.     pg. 61

6.     pg. 85

7.     Vincent Carretta, Where Was Olaudah Equiano Born? (And Why Does It Matter?), (Brycchan Carey 2003-2010), at myasu online class.

Topic: Columbus

The spreading of Christianity played an essential role in Spanish exploration during the late 13^th Century, when Christopher Columbus discovered a new world, yet in addition to the spread of Christianity, the creed for wealth, land and dominance often proved itself to be of even higher importance.

Before embarking on his quest for a shorter route to the Indies, Christopher Columbus appeared before Queen Isabel swearing his desire to give all the profits from his enterprise to the “conquest of Jerusalem.” In response the queen is mentioned to have laughed in approval and explain that “even without this oath” she also desired the same outcome.¹ They both appeared to be on the same page when it came to the purpose of the voyage: to the spread of Christianity which would have ultimately led to the conquest of Jerusalem. In the writ of agreement between Fernando and Isabel and Columbus prior to his first voyage, however, there was no mention given of religious pursuits of any kind. The document mainly protected Columbus’ encomienda or rewards for making the voyage, which included the right to rule as governor (which would be passed down through his posterity) and a share in the treasures found.² In fact no mention of advancing the Christian cause is found in the letters between Columbus and his benefactors until the writ from Fernando and Isabel regarding his third voyage in April of 1497.³ 

Just before land was spotted, during the first voyage, the Crew were in the act of reciting the Salve, a Christian hymn, and upon their first entreaty with the Indians the captains carried two flags with green crosses with the initials F (for King Ferdinand or Fernando) and Y (for Queen Ysabel or Isabel). ⁴   Throughout their journeying in the new land, those sent from the Spanish crown labeled themselves as Christians, while the natives who showed Christian qualities but lacked the faith were called Indians. Columbus talked of their amiable state and child like mannerisms as if they had been waiting for the Christian practices and doctrine to lead them in the right direction.⁴ Before teaching the Indians of their true purpose, however, they were asked repetitively by Columbus and his fellow explorers in a somewhat demanding manner for gold.  Columbus even goes so far to describe the Indians willingness to obey the Christians in building for them a fortress for their goods.⁵

From serving a noble and higher cause of Christianity to promoting the natives to manual labor and slavery, it seems that the Explorers for the new world often lost sight of the Christian cause in their endeavors to ensure for themselves and their king and queen wealth, land and dominance.

            1. Christopher Columbus, Selected Entries from the Log (August 3, 1492 – March 15, 1493), in Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, ed. Geoffrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan (Boston:Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005), 80.

            2. Fernando and Isabel, Santa Fe Capitulations (Santa Fe, April 17, 1492), in Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, ed. Geoffrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan (Boston:Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005), 60.

3. Fernando and Isabel,  Instructions to Columbus for Colonization of the Indies (Burgos, April 23, 1497), in Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, ed. Geoffrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan (Boston:Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005), 102.

4. Colombus, 76.

5. Colombus, 70-83.