Key Groups of the Progressive Movement

Key Groups of the Progressive Movement

After reading the articles provided by authors, Shelton Stromquist and Maureen A. Flanagan it is my opinion that both authors make valid cases regarding influential groups of the Progressive Era. 

        As Flanagan puts forth in her article, “Gender and Urban Political Reform,” the men and women belonging to localized city clubs initiated reform on the municipal level that had influence beyond that of local the cities they operated within.  Although, men and women had opposing agendas regarding political reform, they each nonetheless brought positive standards and change that created a new structure and responsibility to their municipality. 

        It largely ignored that women were concerned with politics.  Rather, it has been deemed that these women of civic clubs were more interested in social, not political causes and reform.  These women’s clubs such as the Women’s City Club were largely concerned with how power in the civil society is ordered.  The clubs aim was to bring order to a municipal government that was weak and decentralized.  The civic clubs of men and women respectfully, saw the need to organize themselves to act for the betterment of their communities without waiting for the federal government to step in, in matters of public education, waste and refuse disposal and sanitation among other concerns. 

        The women’s clubs of Chicago for instance, favored municipal control of utilities and waste management.  Their male counterparts did not share the same opinion, but the women of the city club responded to the men by proving there to be profit to be gained by municipal ownership.

        It was because of the agendas of the women’s club for instance, that children were required to remain in school to the age of fourteen, as well as to receive guidance counseling to help these young adults carve a path in way of a career. In the end, the men and women of the upper-middle class who largely belonged to these civic clubs were integral to the progressive era.  It was these men and women who acted on a local level to bring up the living standards of men, women and children, which in and of itself was an element of the progressive movement.

Now, in the article, “The Crucible of Class,” by Shelton Stromquist, the reader is introduced to the thesis that unions had a great deal of influence on reform in the progressive era.  I certainly believe this to be a fact.  To this day, unions are a strong source of influence on policy.   Shelton wrote that, “unions brought unity to the movement. The working class, although not of the upper-middle class as the men and women of the city groups, created unions that gave them a foothold to make a change where change was needed.  By organizing themselves into unions, these laborers had power to demand attention and change.  Worker’s strikes, for instance had an impact on local politics and party alignments.  Through mass organization, the working class commanded the attention of local politicos who desired their support and thus, paid attention to their desires. 

It is my belief that these two diverging groups, although not of the same social class in tandem made a crucial impact on the implementation of the progressive movement and the ideology of a direct democracy. One, did spur the other to make a change first on the local level, that bled through to the national level. 

Political Cartoon (E) Interpretation

Cartoon E: Randolph and Hancock Cartoon

            In this cartoon drawn by Nast, we see the Democratic presidential candidate General Hancock on the right and on the left, speaking in Hancock’s ear we see Senator Randolph of New Jersey.  Gen. Hancock was held in the highest regard as a war veteran.  He was considered widely as a war hero in the battle of Gettysburg, which further propelled him as one of the most qualified commanders in the army.  In the election of 1880, Gen. Hancock ran against Republican James A. Garfield.  Due to the immense respect Hancock had as a war hero, there was little the republicans had in their arsenal to tarnish him as a viable presidential candidate, until, that is, Hancock made a public comment about the hottest topic at the time - tariffs.

            During the 1880 presidential election, no issue was discussed and debated more than the issue of tariffs imposed in the United States.  During the campaign, Gen. Hancock said publicly that the issue of Tariffs was a “local issue,” thus did not deserve the time discussing it on a national platform during the campaign.  The republicans took the opportunity to pounce on Hancock, criticizing him by saying he lacked the political experience to be a good president.

            I discovered that Thomas Nast was a Radical Republican and this made sense to me, as he clearly depicted Hancock as a confused and absurd candidate for president.  The word “Confusion” is in the center of the cartoon hovering above Randolph and Hancock.  On the bottom of the page is written, “Local Question” and then the sarcastic sentence that follows. “Who is tariff and why is he for Revenue?”  The statement is used to portray Hancock as so uniformed as to mistake tariff for a person, not a political issue.  This reminds me of when Sarah Palin made the comment that she could see Russia from Alaska.  One comment was so greatly spun into a tidal wave of sentiment that the candidate was stupid, ridiculous or just absurd.  I only bring this up as a comparison, not an argument whether public opinion was right or wrong on the matter.  To add to my assertion that Nast is portraying Hancock as a dolt, Randolph seems to be coaching Hancock.  He is leaning in towards him, with a box above his head, which says this is a lecture platform and not to take questions regarding the tariff until after the elections.

            Hancock and the Democratic Party had endorsed tariff policy for revenue purposes and tried to avoid the contentious topic by saying it was a local issue.  The Republicans wanted a tariff as well, however, they proposed a tariff so high, it would not only bring in revenue to the government, it would also discourage the purchase of foreign goods.  This, in turn, would theoretically protect the economy as well.

History of Rights in Modern Day Context

Rights in the Modern Day

            As westerners, we have had heard the term human rights, used backward and forwards.  With all do respect, it is likely a term many of us take little time to dissect and consider.  By definition of the word alone, rights seem to be an undeniable entitlement.  However, to whom much is given, much is to be expected.  With that in mind, human rights raise a standard of living that compels all of us to recognize if we want our rights respected, we must respect the rights of others as well.  It is my opinion that human rights do not need to be defined as God given or Nature given.  I only take that stance because the matter of “who’s God” or, “which God,“ creates dissension among those with clashing religious ideologies.  I do believe we were all given the power of free will and as a human race, we are better off to exercise that will paying heed to others and to the affects we have on society.   Rights are absolutely elemental here in the western world.   They ought to be crucial and apposite worldwide.

            By defining ‘rights,’ and the ways in which they can be applied to each of us as a society without prejudice of race, sex or age, a standard of living is set.  Boundaries are more easily determined and drawn as to what is acceptable behavior or treatment of citizens of a country or as humans co-existing on this planet.  Humans are constantly evolving.  We are never the same one year and without change or maturation years later.  For that reason, I believe it only makes sense that all rights, whether they be social, civil, or political evolve in time as well.  For instance, it is undeniable to me that if a white man has his right to speech and freedom, a black man, or a woman ought to have the same rights.  Unfortunately, societal thinking doesn’t always move so fast.  There often has to be a progressive change to take place and progression often takes time.  So, to say we have God given rights, I believe is a very true statement, but I would be wary to define rights as God given because it is left to us to recognize and implement those rights.    

Module Three Blog: Where was Olaudah Equiano Born?

Was Olaudah Equiano African born or American born?

            The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano            is a harrowing read written by Equiano himself recounting his life as a slave (and then a freed slave) living in Europe and the Americas in the middle and late eighteenth century.  As the reader is a taken back in time to a place of enslavement and subjugation of Africans- human beings, it is a sobering illumination of one African’s life in particular, before the abolitionist movement really gained ground in England in the nineteenth century.  Since Equiano’s book has been published and republished, it has been theorized that he may in fact have been lying when he writes he was a boy born of the Igbo tribe in Nigeria, Africa in the year 1745.  In 1999, heading up this new theory, Professor Vincent Carretta concluded from baptism and boat records Equiano was in fact born in South Carolina.  Since the launch of this claim of deceit, there have been studies made as to which is true.  Was Equiano born in Africa as he says, or was he born in South Carolina?  At the conclusion of reading Equiano’s autobiography I can only surmise that he was in fact born in Africa as he has written.  I believe Equiano because, his is a story meant to edify his readers and appeal to the moral fiber in all of us.  To lie in his book would absolutely discredit him and therefore, his mission.

            There is a sound argument made on behalf of both sides of the argument regarding the birthplace Equiano.  As Carretta found, there is even written evidence to support the theory he was born in South Carolina.  A Royal Navy muster roll from Constantine Phipp’s Arctic expedition of 1773 says that Equiano was born in South Carolina.[1]  Equiano’s baptismal record also states he was born not in Africa, but in South Carolina.  However, is this enough to prove that Equiano was as a matter of fact born in America? Those two pieces of documents are all the written evidence to support Carretta’s theory. 

            In contrast there is evidence to prove the contrary as well.  For example, Equiano threatened legal action against those who took out a newspaper ad defaming Equiano by claiming he was born in America.  Equiano thereby produced witnesses who could verify that he had arrived in England thirty years earlier, unable to speak any language other than “that of Africa.”[2]  Equiano further describes himself as African in passages like this,  “ Now the Ethiopian was willing to be saved by Jesus Christ, the sinner’s only surety.”[3]

            Equiano not only gives descriptions of his homeland, he also mixes the descriptions with sentiment; it is this sentimental memory of his family and life before abduction that leads me to side with him rather than the arguments made by Vincent Carretta.  Equiano describes his youth writing, “As the youngest of sons, I became, of course, the greatest favorite of my mother and was always with her; and she used to take particular pains to form my mind.” He goes on,  “My daily exercise was shooting and throwing javelins; and my mother adorned me with emblems, after the manner of our greatest warriors.”[4]

            Throughout his book, we see Equiano plays up this quest and exemplification of virtue and morality; it is only normal to want to shed oneself in the best possible light.  So it is not withstanding that it is plausible he was not as virtuous as he would have the reader believe. However, he gains credence with me when he recounts an experience of doing something that is abnormal for him and his temperament.  After being chided and then physically hit by a slave belonging to a white man in Savannah, Equiano engages in a fight for the first time in his life and admits to the reader he had lost his temper.  “I knew there was little or no law for a free Negro here; but the fellow, instead of taking my advice, persevered in his insults, and even struck me.” He wrote, “At this, I lost my temper and I fell on him and beat him soundly.”[5]  It is not so much that this was a pivotal event, but that Equiano allowed the reader to see he was not always as controlled, as perhaps, he would have liked to have been.  He was honest enough to include this in his narrative.

            After reading the narrative written by Equiano himself, one may deduce this is a man of much substance and strength.  Not just a man who wants to merely survive the heinous crimes taken place against him, but to come out the other side a humbled spiritual and religious enthusiast.  It is my observation that Equiano seeks this enlightenment through virtue.  Therefore, based on the portrayal of his character, I do not believe he would set out to deceive the whole of his readership by lying about his birthplace.

---

[1] Brycchan Carey, 2003-2010

[2]  Robert J. Allison, The Interesting Narrative of the life of Olaudah Equiano: Introduction (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 25.

[3] Olaudah Equiano, The Interesting Narrative of the life of Olaudah Equiano: (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 177.

[4]Olaudah Equiano, The Interesting Narrative of the life of Olaudah Equiano: Introduction (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 57.

[5] Olaudah Equiano, The Interesting Narrative of the life of Olaudah Equiano: Introduction (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 137.