Talk:Progressive Era

Progressive Presidents

Woodrow Wilson wins the prize for being the most progressive president because more than THEODORE ROOSEVELT

yeeeeeahh you know you love soap on a ropjij8h uggug bjbn vbye <3 Theodore Rooseveltkgkg became president in September 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley. Although he had been vice president under McKinley, Roosevelt did not share McKinley’s conservative, pro-business policies. He earned the nickname "trustbuster".

Instead, as president, Roosevelt advanced aggressive political reforms, including the heavy regulation of business. Known as the “trust-buster,” Roosevelt was the first president to successfully invoke the Sherman Antitrust Act against monopolies and continued to restrict businesses throughout his presidency. His reforms greatly influenced economic, environmental, and international affairs as well. Roosevelt’s platform became known as the “Square Deal” because he vowed not to favor any group of Americans bsyd jndft to be fair to all.

Relations with Labor and Corporations Roosevelt was committed to addressing the problems of labor and corporate activity. Unlike his predecessors, Roosevelt defended the right of labor to organize, and eschewed the use of federal troops to put down strikes. In 1902, he intervened in a United Mine Workers Strike and helped labor get management to agree to bind arbitration. The arbitrators awarded the miners a wage increase and a shortened workday. Roosevelt also worked to restrict tkbvh,vne power of big business by breaking up a monopoly. In his administration’s first trust-busting case, his attorney general filed suit against the Northern Securities Company, a railroad holding company, for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, which had not been successfully used against monopolies since its passage in 1890. After this case, though, the Act became an extremely important tool for government regulation of corporations. In 1904, the Supreme Court ordered that the Northern Securities Company be dissolved, a decision that launched a series of antitrust suits. In all, the Roosevelt administration filed forty-three trust-busting suits. After winning reelection in 1904, Roosevelt traded sporadic bursts of trust busting for more permanent regulation. He successfully negotiated the passage of the Hepburn Act in 1906, which empowered the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), a previously weak agency, to set maximum railroad rates and inspect railroad companies’ financial records. Roosevelt, unlike his Republican predecessors in office, was not pro-business. [he was indeed pro business on the whole--compared with say Bryan. Rjensen 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC) ] He aggressively enforced the Sherman Antitrust Act and empowered the Interstate Commerce Commission, both key elements in his “Square Deal.” Protecting Consumers and Conserving the Environment Responding to the muckrakers’ exposés on the unsanitary conditions in food plants and the dangerous ingredients in foods and medicines, Roosevelt endorsed the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, both passed in 1906. The first act prohibited the sale of adulterated or inaccurately labeled foods and medicines, and the second established federal regulations for meatpackers and a system of inspection. [in fact it was big business that wanted those loaws so they could shut down local unsanitary packers Rjensen 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)] The early twentieth century also saw a rise in concern for the environment. Those who supported conservation and protection of wilderness sites were called preservationists. [No that is a later term. "conservation" is the word you want. Rjensen 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)] Preservationists were often in conflict with business interests who saw the wilderness in terms of resources and space for commercial and residential development. [drop last part of sentence--not an issue in 1900-1910 Rjensen 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)]Roosevelt was at heart a preservationist, but understood the need for compromise. He achieved this compromise through his conservation program, which provided for the regulated use of the nation’s wilderness. Roosevelt designated 200 million acres as national forests, mineral reserves, and potential waterpower sites, and added five national parks and eighteen national monuments to the list of protected lands. In 1908 Roosevelt created the National Conservation Commission to inventory the nation’s resources and manage their use more efficiently. Conservationism was a hallmark of Roosevelt’s presidency. He protected land through the creation of national parks and monuments, and advocated the responsible use of the nation’s resources by establishing the National Conservation Commission.

TAFT

Reform Under Taft Taft supported corporate regulation, and even strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission’s powers and extended its authority to the telephone and telegraph industries. He surpassed the Roosevelt administration in trust busting. Taft prosecuted ninety cases compared to Roosevelt’s forty-three. These cases, however, did not achieve the same level of publicity or impact as those under Roosevelt, and so Taft was generally considered a less aggressive trustbuster. Additional reform under Taft centered on two amendments to the Constitution, both ratified after he exited office. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment granted Congress the authority to tax income. After the amendment passed, Congress quickly established a graduated income tax with a maximum tax rate of 7 percent. The Seventeenth Amendment, also ratified in 1913, provided for direct election of U.S. senators by the people rather than their selection by state legislatures. This amendment was one part of a general movement for government reform, under which the public took an increasingly powerful and direct role in electing officials. [ok but add tariff reform & reciprocity w Canada--big issues in 1910-11 Rjensen 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)]

WOODROW WILSON

Wilson’s first legislative action was to lower the tariff. In 1913, he sponsored the Underwood Tariff, which cut tariffs substantially. It was the nation’s first reduction in tariffs since before the civil war. Also in 1913, Wilson helped launch an investigation into the possibly corrupt relations between pro-tariff lobbyists and certain senators. [drop--he did not launch that, COngress did & it went nowhere Rjensen 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)] The Federal Reserve System Wilson and his supporters sought to create a centralized bank system under public control, which would be able to stabilize the economy in times of panic. [Sen Aldrich designed the system--WW gets credit for passing over objection of people like Bryan Rjensen 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)] After months of bargaining, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. This act established a network of regional Federal Reserve banks under partially private and partially public control. The Federal Reserve Board was created to oversee the entire network and national fiscal policy. Initially weak, the “Fed” would become a powerful force in American economics. [initially weak? note WW insisted it was 100% private. Rjensen 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)] Wilson’s most notable legislative achievement was the 1913 passage of the Federal Reserve Act, establishing the system of Federal Reserve banks still in use today. Business Regulation Wilson pushed two important regulatory measures through Congress in 1914. First, the Federal Trade Commission Act created a five-member agency to investigate suspected violations of interstate trade regulations and to issue “cease and desist” orders should it find corporations guilty of unfair practices. Secondly, the Clayton Antitrust Act improved upon the vague Sherman Antitrust Act by enumerating a series of illegal business practices. The Wilson administration initiated antitrust suits against almost one hundred corporations. Labor and Farm Reform Wilson strongly supported worker’s rights. Under his administration, Congress passed a series of labor laws designed to ban child labor, shorten workdays, and, in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, provide injury protection to federal employees. Wilson also supported reforms benefiting farmers, such as low-interest loan programs. [you miss explosive RR issue in 1916...and note Supreme Court struck down child labor law Rjensen 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)]

--Robertchen 03:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three goals of the progressives were to end the abuses of power, create and reform institutions that helped the individual, and apply science to managening political and economic institutions. Three methods used to accomplish progressive goals were muckraking newspapers, and novels that exposed the ills of society, and political reforms like the inititative referendum and recall. Different groups of progressives advocating reform were middle-class reformers, upper-class reformers, working class-reformers and socialists. The state governments took limited step to implement progressive reforms.In Wisconsin, Governor Robert M. La Follette wrestled control from the trusts and returned power to the people, becoming a Progressive leader in the process.Other states also took to regulate railroads and trusts, such as Oregon and California, which was led by Governor Hiram W. Johnson.Charles Evans Hughes, governor of New York, gained fame by investigating the malpractices of gas and insurance companies. The federal governement had a mixed record during the progressive era, the judical branch in particular was very conservative. The landmark case of Muller vs. Oregon (1908) found attorney Louis D. Brandeis persuading the Supreme Court to accept the constitutionality of laws that protected women workers. On the other hand, the case of Lochner vs. New York invalidated a New York law establishing a ten-hour day for bakers. Yet, in 1917, the Court upheld a similar law for factory workers The Progressivism spirit touched President Roosevelt, and his “Square Deal” embraced control of the corporations, consumer protection, and the conservation of the United States’ natural resources. TR did crack down on over 40 trusts, and he helped dissolve he beef, sugar, fertilizer, and harvesters trusts, but in reality, he wasn’t as big of a trustbuster as he has been portrayed. He had no wish to take down the “good trusts,” but the trusts that did fall under TR’s big stick fell symbolically, so that other trusts would reform themselves. TR’s successor, William Howard Taft, crushed more trusts than TR, and in one incident, when Taft tried to crack down on U.S. Steel, a company that had personally allowed by TR to absorb the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company. Woodrow Wilson’s presidency saw reforms in the banking system and tarrifs. In 1914, Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act, which empowered a presidentially appointed position to investigate the activities of trusts and stop unfair trade practices such as unlawful competition, false advertising, mislabeling, adulteration, & bribery. The 1914 Clayton Anti-Trust Act lengthened the Sherman Anti-Trust Act’s list of practices that were objectionable, exempted labor unions from being called trusts (as they had been called by the Supreme Court under the Sherman Act), and legalized strikes and peaceful picketing by labor union members. --Gary123 01:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Muckrakers?

I might be missing something here but what relevance does the muckrakers sentence have with the rest of the article? If the sentence is relevant to Progressivism, could the author link it in with the rest of the text?

muckrakers was a name commonly given to journalists who exposed government corruption, so it is indeed relevant. They were the people that essentially provided progressivists with issues to fix in government. Cactus Guru (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only GVT corruption, also things like the meat packing industry were exposed by these people. (triggered the pure food and drug act) 71.125.47.229 (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

God only knows why they chose "Progressive Era", but this article has been hit with a lot of stupid vandalism in the past couple weeks. Might be a necessary candidate for semi-protection until those responsible get distracted by a shiny object and move on. Sloverlord 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's likely because this is about the time U.S. history classes hit the progressive era. That's why I'm here. Dunno why people are such asses though - probably because they are anonymous (not to mention young). I agree on the semi-protect Mgsloan 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm here for the same reason as above. I can't say whether I agree or not though, I'm inexperienced. Exposay 8 January 2007

I've just come now for same reason :D looks like my schools a bit ahead of you all. We're hitting it in September. Anyway, yeah, judging by the quality of this article, it looks like its definitely being hit on a regular basis as people come by for school. Its unfortunate, because this is why so many teachers hate wikipedia, and people are only coming across it for school. My entire school's network is banned from editing wikipedia, which strikes me as funny. I tried to do a little to fix it up, but still have homework and can't do everything. If each student that came by just did something positive for the article (as is the basic idea behind wikipedia) instead of negative vandalism, these commonly visited articles would be the ones that were featured, instead of the less-visited ones that vandalizers don't hit. Another sad instance is when a well-wishing student adds a correct fact, but it isn't written in the correct wikipedia format, or isn't cited. Then, all these correct additions build up incorrectly, and some wikipedia veteran comes by, sees the horrible organization, and declares that is too messed up to be fixed, and nominates it for deletion, when all it needs is for someone to find a few sources to back up the information and to put it all together nicely. Well, sorry for the rant... i dont even remember what my point was :D just wanted to get that off my chest Cactus Guru (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization on P(p)rogressive

The Capitalization on the articles about Progressivism and the Progressive Era don't have consistent capitalization on the word Progressive. I'm not sure if it's a proper noun or not, but I'm leaning towards that it is. Exposay 8 January 2007

well actually, "progressive" is an adjective. >_> ...to actually answer your question though, I'm pretty sure it's always capitalized when referring to the time period or groups associated with it, but not when it's being used to describe something normally. ("Many progressive actions took place during the Progressive Era.")67.222.201.194 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Norris???

I wasn't aware that Chuck Norris was a Progressive. I do know, however, that Frank Norris was, he wrote McTeague in 1899(published). That's from The American Nation: A History Of The United States Ninth Edition by John A. Garraty. That's AP U.S. History for ya.

72.230.34.237 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Overlap with Fourth Party System

The Fourth Party System article begans: "The Fourth Party System or Progressive Era..." Isn't a merge something to consider? Tazmaniacs 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

horrible grammer

Can someone please change that horrible run on sentence. Excuse me, though it goes on forever with those "whethers" and what not, it still is not a sentence. I don't mind poor grammer once in a while, but this is painful to read.

To the poster above: GrammAr. That is all.

Critisism removed from the Lede

"At the time, it was called the "Progressive Era," but historians have debated whether it was truly progressive." Was the guilded age really guilded?

To this poster:

         That's gilded, Gomer.

Merger

I have also come to propose a merge with Fourth Party System; at the moment we have two articles on the history of the Progressive Era, this one incomplete, the other written by a Republican partisan. The merger need not be complete; a stub on the (disputed) idea of the Fourth Party System is not a bad idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge. Tazmaniacs 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

do not merge political scientists have a different literature and approach and use the 4th party system terminology all the time, for example in AP US Government courses taht 100,000 people a year take in USA. Historians take a different methodological approach (pol sci uses statistics and roll call studies, historians do not, for example) and use different theoretical models. Rjensen 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yhere are, in fact, very few papers on this subject; one of them is by Richard Jensen. There are enough that we should have an article on the subject; the metastasis of the idea through Wikipedia, however, seems to be the work of Rjensen, who inserted the paper into article text here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson should not be alarmed that there is a real live expert at work here in Wikipedia. If a topic appears in numerous college textbooks over a period of years, as this one has, it seems legitimate enough.Rjensen 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not Rjensen's expertise that I'm concerned about, it's his lack of scholarly accuracy, his PoV-pushing, his vanity edits, and his inconsistency. But more on this in another place Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PManderson likes to fight with experts--its his OR that is illegal. Rjensen 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen usually fails to report what his sources actually say; see WP:RfC/Rjensen and its talk page for more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Merge Keep Separate I normally wouldn't have taken a side on this issue, but unfortunately this both articles have proven quite useful for research. The Fourth Party System is described in The American Pageant: A History of the Republic AP Edition.

Quote from the text:

"The long reign of Republican political dominance that it (McKinley victory in 1896) ushered in was accompanied by diminishing voter participation in elections, the weakening of party organizations, and the fading away of issues like the money question and civil-service reform, which came to be replaced by concern for industrial regulation and the welfare of labor. Scholars have dubbed this new political era the period of the "fourth party system".

I do believe that some pressing this issue for merger might be viewing this issue with an endocentric (or is it exocentric?) point of view. This article was not in fact written by a "Republican partisan", but is instead established modern historical thought on US history. Please, do not associate the current actions of the US Republican Party today with the events that happened during the turn of the 20th century.

As a side note, I do agree that both articles need to be cleaned up and expanded greatly.

Just my thoughts --Sharkface217 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to see what you make of them. I would support having the history here at Progressive Era, and an analysps of the politics (voting blocs, correlations, and so forth) at Fourth Party System. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Home Rule

Odd that Municipal Home Rule gets no mention; the doctrine had some traction at the time and several US State constitutions were amended to provide it. Alas, I'm not qualified to write such a paragraph. Jim.henderson 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No Merger of Articles, Please

Don't merge these articles. If they need to be edited to make them better that would be fine, but they should be kept separate, and both should stay. Progressive Era is a label relevant punjabs to the topic of History, while Fourth Party System is relevant to Political Science. Both should explore different specifics of the era. Ultimately this means they don't really mean the exact same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.167.236 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Political realignment is not the same as a party system. And party system as historians understand it is different than how political scientists understand it (apparently, if political scientists believe that there have been more than three). In US history there have been three party systems and many political realignments (e.g., 1896, 1936, 1976). --RedJ 17 20:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with the writer above. Please don't merge these articles. The merger of these articles would undermine the discussion concerning the evolution of the American Party System. The concepts share similarities, but are referring to different contexts. Both are relevant in their respective fields and for their different purposes.

Hamilton

I think Alice Hamilton is an important person of the "progressiv era" and she should be coated in the article. --Sweet buttuery tart crust (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you want to add Alice Hamilton to the "Progressive Era#Notable Progressive intellectuals, writers, advocates" section. Since the Alice Hamilton article already exists and you believe that she should be included, go ahead and make the addition. -- Tcncv (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

criticism section is odd

It seems like basically a bullet-pointed list of links to some critical essays. Some of these may be notable, but they aren't explained. It also picks weird issues to focus on; for example, changes in birthing practice are not exactly the highest-profile controversy regarding the Progressive Era. More relevant would be the mixed legacy of Prohibition, which isn't mentioned at all. --Delirium (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

brevity

Entry seems kinda short. Each kind of reform could have its own section if somebody ambitious is interested in re-writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.217.55 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

African Americans and Native Americans

Thee ought to be relevant information explaining many of the common criticisms against policies that were unfavourable towards African Americans and Native Americans. Other issues such as the practive of imperialism and the attitudes towards prohibition should be included as well. ADM (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Progressives?

I see a certain editor is edit-warring to make Morgan and the Rockefellers progressives. This is news to me; it would be news, and severely offensive, to them.

If this article had a list of notable persons of the 1890's, there is no doubt that the Rockefellers, and Morgan, would be on it; but that list is elsewhere, and does not belong here.

Who's next, Mark Hanna? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We also require a source for Frederick Jackson Turner. Being a historian is not, in itself, a form of progressivism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Systematic Racism and Eugenics

This period was one of the most hideous in American history in regards to the rights of racial minorities and those persecuted under Eugenics programs. Progressive laws saw the cementing of Jim Crow into law and the restriction of unwanted races from entering the United States. This needs its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.154.58 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to add eugenics to one of the topics. There is a significant need for it in this wiki as it was a large part ofthe progressive era. I will get to it later if nobody takes this on. Retrospectives: Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era Journal of Economic Perspectives (2009), p, 37-51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueliberal (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And an International section?

This article, being domestic US, is somewhat out of my normal editing realm, but it seems to me there should be a section on the influence of the Progressive Era on international relations, since it coincides with the US's appearance on the stage of world 'heavies'. Wilson's Fourteen Points, played a part in the end of WWI, it was juxtaposed to Old World colonial interests, and significantly influenced the world with his League of Nations. At least, Mr.Pulitzer seemed to consider the situation's possibilities[1], heading into the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

== Is this vandalism? of politics was a main Progressive goal, with many Progressives trying to expose and undercut political machines and bosses, exclude illiterates, and blacks from the vote, and cutting back on immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe through devices like a literacy test."

It needs a rewrite, the components needs to be dealt with separately; I'd do it except that I don't know enough add the references you would need to back up claims such as this. So I'm just highlighting it hoping someone else will get to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.122.210 (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP ME

I'm Writing an essay on the topic and this is kinda hard to understand, so it would be nice if someone could post a summary --205.209.14.58 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange

I, Windows7magic (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC), honestly don't see how this is progressive. Could someone point that out?

---

Windows7magic (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Eugenics

We have one editor who seems to think that eugenics was the most important reform of the era, based on one article in an economics journal. The article in question covers only a dozen economists, and does not claim to represent the views of the mainstream of the economics profession, which in turn was not one of the dominant forces in the progressive Era. The immigration restriction movement began long before the eugenics movement. While there was indeed some influence in the 1920s, it was hardly dominant. for example, the major political force behind immigration restriction, especially Asian restriction, was the labor union movement, which did not need advanced biological ideas to try and stop the large-scale influx of low-wage unskilled workers. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Vandalism", my (BLEEP)

It's generally considered good form to actually do a google search to get your facts straight before crying vandalism. 10 seconds worth of effort would have shown the correct title of the book in question. Seriously, who's clueless enough to think it's more believable that a publisher in 1968 would release a book with the word "Nigger" in the title, than that some racist troll would maliciously edit a wikipedia entry? http://www.worldcat.org/title/malignant-heritage-yankee-progressives-and-the-negro-question-1901-1914/oclc/328456

76.255.29.99 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gambling

The article seems to completely overlook the subject of gambling. Gambling, alcohol, and narcotics were all seen as related vices to be eliminated. It was the prohibitions against these that led to the rise of the mafia and similar large-scale crime empires during this period.

On that note, the rise of major crime syndicates is another facet of the Progressive Era that this article does not cover.

--192.88.158.211 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)