What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
The Reform Unionism and Trade Unionism were interesting. Reform Unionism believes that the best way to safeguard workers is to reform the broader society by being involved in politics and having representatives. Trade Unionism focuses on short-term and more tangible goals, such as getting higher wages, better working condition and so on. It reminds me of W.E.B.Du Bois, who believed in classical education and gaining political power through voting rights, and Booker T. Washington, who supported industrial education and gaining practical skills. It seems that people often have disagreement on short-term or long-term solution for social problems.
One thing that stood out to me from this week’s lectures was the discussion of the different types of unions, including business, craft, industrial, and reform unionism. With regard to business unionism, it is interesting that the characteristics of those unions were a high dues requirement and striking sparingly. They had funds saved up for strikes, while they urged members to only strike for major issues. Since there were different ways of how unions trade unions were organized, were workers typically part of multiple unions, since they had a craft and were apart of an industry?
The rise of the industrial working class is a theme that can't be ignored during this time. I was taken back by the extreme increase in the number of workers. From 1860 to 1900 the number of industrial workers rose from 5.3 million to 17.4 million. Women were also now included in that workforce, especially within New England factories. I found the introduction of children in the work force interesting too. In the previous agricultural society children were expected to help out on the farm and no one would pay any mind to the work the children do. Now involving children in work in an industrial setting is raises controversy because it is dangerous, kids are being exploited and children aren't pursuing their education. It is clear that the surge in this new industrial society affected not only men, but now women and children involved in the workforce.
What stood out to me the most was the disparity between laborers and corporate leaders. Reading the primary source of Thomas O'Donnell testifying to the U.S. Senate Committee gave me a more personal understanding of what life was like for laborers in the late 19th century, allowing me to be more empathetic towards this group. The fact that his children did not have clothing to keep them warm during the winter and did not own a pair of shoes disturbed me. What disturbed me more was that this was extremely prevalent during this time. It is not like Mr. O'Donnell did not want to work, it was that he could not find work, and when he did the wages were very low. It was interesting how if you had sons, you were more likely to find work because you could have them work with you, a source of cheap labor for these mills and factories. While this was happening, other men, like Andrew Carnegie, had wealth that was hardly fathomable for the time period. A question that the lecture raised for me was, if laborers were getting paid so poorly, how and why were many of them willing and able to pay high dues to labor unions?
What stood out to me this week was the issue of the new middle class. In a time that's known for the extremes of wealth and poverty, the middle class was creating a new name for itself. It turned into a group of white collar bureaucrats that were all part of a larger corporate machine. Entertainment also became a bigger deal, as this middle class had more money and time to use on leisure. The industrial working class of laborers didn't have quite this luxury. They suffered at the hands of the corporate leaders, who kept their wages to a minimum and provided little benefits.
I thought the discussion of the different types of labor unions this week was very interesting. Before, I had just thought of labor unions as all the same type of groups, with workers wanting better wages and conditions. After the lecture today, however, I saw how many different groups of labor unions there were and how they all had different end goals for their respective organizations. My question is if the competition and separations between different schools of thought and labor parties made them less effective as a whole?
The biggest thing that stood out to me this week was the large involvement and control of corporate leaders in the political realm. The idea that people could essentially get themselves into politics through money and patronage only seemed to add to the growing power of corporations of the time period. The growth of the urban structure also added to the increased involvement of boss politics. How did the U.S. control and regulate politics after this growing issue? Could one still argue that money and loyalty, albeit not as corrupt as the late 1800s, have the power to get political candidates into office?
I thought the most interesting theme from lectures this week was the idea of patronage and how widely it was used in all levels of government. This seems to be an echo of Andrew Jackson's "spoils system," in which the political victor is given the right to distribute positions to his supporters. At its height, patronage even led to the death of President Garfield at the hands of a disappointed office seeker. My question is would American politics have been as popularly or highly contested if not for the presence of patronage? My name isn't showing but this is by Joao Pan
As the disparity between wealth and poverty grew, so did the expansion of mid-level bureaucratic jobs like "clerks." A middle class began to formulate with a new identity and women's role in this middle class was integral. The family economy and "cult of domesticity", which led to an increase in the hiring of domestic servants and free white middle-class women to spend time in pursuits outside of the home, poses a question for me: with women increasingly working outside of the home, how were they represented in labor federations and unions? There mustn't have been strikes dedicated for women in the workplace due to the "global" sentiment toward women, but their position in the economy made them indispensable. Outside of the suffrage movement, what steps were taken to ensure women's rights in the workplace? Women must've been a serious consideration in future Progressive movements because women had become deeply ingrained into society outside of the home. I look forward to exploring this topic in the next few weeks.
One thing that stood out during this week's lectures and readings was the general lack of success that laborers and labor organizations had in striking against their owners and overseers. In many of the major strikes touched upon, like the Pullman strike and the great strike of 1877, labor was put down violently by mill and factory owners with the added power of federal intervention through the use of federal troops. After these strikes were resolved in this fashion, the strikers rarely got any of the demands they had called for. I wonder at what point did this trend change and reform began to outweigh the wishes of factory owners to cut costs and continue to lower wages or keep hours and conditions at the status quo?
I think my favorite theme during this week's lecture was the primary political discourse of the time period over the "spoils system." To think that it was able to grip the entire political system so greatly that the president himself was assassinated over the debate underscores just how prevalent corrupt politics were in the Gilded Age. In retrospect, it is quite obvious that we currently appreciate the efforts of the Mugwamps to reform the system; however, it is also easy to see just how powerful the lure of Stalwarts was as they handed out essentially free jobs just for political support. A question I have over the lectures was where did women tend to stand on this political issue? It is probably difficult to tell considering their relative lack of political efficacy at the time period.
I thought an interesting theme this week was the fact that the government virtually always sided with the business owners during this time period. As mentioned by Professor Dickerson, it wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt became president that the government became more of a neutral negotiator in these disputes. I think that this relationship between government and the strikers was both unhealthy and would ultimately contribute to the progressive movement as the working class became sick of government continually working against them. My question for the week is: how much money did the corporations spend, in comparison to their total profits, on buying off government officials?
The most interesting thing to me in this reading was the force and violence that the government was willing to use in order to crush strikes. The government almost always sided with the corporations over the workers. One of the reasons was clearly the power and influence the corporations had over politics and this clearly represents corrupt politics in the gilded age. How will the power and influence corporations have over politics be prevented and when will the government side with workers over the corporation?
The most interesting theme for me during lecture this week was the rise of unions, and the different measures laborers took to contest the combined power of both the Corporations and the Federal Government. What most interested me was the fact that the federal government often used federal troops to stop any sort of strike on the part of the laborers, and this highlights the corruption of government and the system of patronage that was prevalent at this time period. The usage of spoils systems and a trickle down effect of patronage led to the corruption of politics and governmental support for coproatoins on the municipal, state, and federal levels. The rise of Union Federations was a response to this, but to me, it seems as if any real progress for the Laborer would not be possible without aid from the federal government. With law on the side of the corporations, it would be difficult to make any sort of progress. Labor Unions saw this, and tried to combat it by electing their own leaders, but with the system of patronage and corruption already in place, it was increasingly difficult if not impossible. This would not change until the impartial intervention of Theodore Roosevelt. My question for this week would be, besides the system of patronage and the spoils system, what motivated the government to so adamantly side with the corporation and its leaders? Wouldn't the workers who made everything happen be a worthy side to aid as well?
The Reform Unionism and Trade Unionism were interesting. Reform Unionism believes that the best way to safeguard workers is to reform the broader society by being involved in politics and having representatives. Trade Unionism focuses on short-term and more tangible goals, such as getting higher wages, better working condition and so on. It reminds me of W.E.B.Du Bois, who believed in classical education and gaining political power through voting rights, and Booker T. Washington, who supported industrial education and gaining practical skills. It seems that people often have disagreement on short-term or long-term solution for social problems.
ReplyDeleteThis is Cindy, don't know why it showed up as "Unknown".
DeleteOne thing that stood out to me from this week’s lectures was the discussion of the different types of unions, including business, craft, industrial, and reform unionism. With regard to business unionism, it is interesting that the characteristics of those unions were a high dues requirement and striking sparingly. They had funds saved up for strikes, while they urged members to only strike for major issues. Since there were different ways of how unions trade unions were organized, were workers typically part of multiple unions, since they had a craft and were apart of an industry?
ReplyDeleteThe rise of the industrial working class is a theme that can't be ignored during this time. I was taken back by the extreme increase in the number of workers. From 1860 to 1900 the number of industrial workers rose from 5.3 million to 17.4 million. Women were also now included in that workforce, especially within New England factories. I found the introduction of children in the work force interesting too. In the previous agricultural society children were expected to help out on the farm and no one would pay any mind to the work the children do. Now involving children in work in an industrial setting is raises controversy because it is dangerous, kids are being exploited and children aren't pursuing their education. It is clear that the surge in this new industrial society affected not only men, but now women and children involved in the workforce.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me the most was the disparity between laborers and corporate leaders. Reading the primary source of Thomas O'Donnell testifying to the U.S. Senate Committee gave me a more personal understanding of what life was like for laborers in the late 19th century, allowing me to be more empathetic towards this group. The fact that his children did not have clothing to keep them warm during the winter and did not own a pair of shoes disturbed me. What disturbed me more was that this was extremely prevalent during this time. It is not like Mr. O'Donnell did not want to work, it was that he could not find work, and when he did the wages were very low. It was interesting how if you had sons, you were more likely to find work because you could have them work with you, a source of cheap labor for these mills and factories. While this was happening, other men, like Andrew Carnegie, had wealth that was hardly fathomable for the time period. A question that the lecture raised for me was, if laborers were getting paid so poorly, how and why were many of them willing and able to pay high dues to labor unions?
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me this week was the issue of the new middle class. In a time that's known for the extremes of wealth and poverty, the middle class was creating a new name for itself. It turned into a group of white collar bureaucrats that were all part of a larger corporate machine. Entertainment also became a bigger deal, as this middle class had more money and time to use on leisure. The industrial working class of laborers didn't have quite this luxury. They suffered at the hands of the corporate leaders, who kept their wages to a minimum and provided little benefits.
ReplyDeleteI thought the discussion of the different types of labor unions this week was very interesting. Before, I had just thought of labor unions as all the same type of groups, with workers wanting better wages and conditions. After the lecture today, however, I saw how many different groups of labor unions there were and how they all had different end goals for their respective organizations. My question is if the competition and separations between different schools of thought and labor parties made them less effective as a whole?
ReplyDeleteThe biggest thing that stood out to me this week was the large involvement and control of corporate leaders in the political realm. The idea that people could essentially get themselves into politics through money and patronage only seemed to add to the growing power of corporations of the time period. The growth of the urban structure also added to the increased involvement of boss politics. How did the U.S. control and regulate politics after this growing issue? Could one still argue that money and loyalty, albeit not as corrupt as the late 1800s, have the power to get political candidates into office?
ReplyDeleteI thought the most interesting theme from lectures this week was the idea of patronage and how widely it was used in all levels of government. This seems to be an echo of Andrew Jackson's "spoils system," in which the political victor is given the right to distribute positions to his supporters. At its height, patronage even led to the death of President Garfield at the hands of a disappointed office seeker. My question is would American politics have been as popularly or highly contested if not for the presence of patronage?
ReplyDeleteMy name isn't showing but this is by Joao Pan
As the disparity between wealth and poverty grew, so did the expansion of mid-level bureaucratic jobs like "clerks." A middle class began to formulate with a new identity and women's role in this middle class was integral. The family economy and "cult of domesticity", which led to an increase in the hiring of domestic servants and free white middle-class women to spend time in pursuits outside of the home, poses a question for me: with women increasingly working outside of the home, how were they represented in labor federations and unions? There mustn't have been strikes dedicated for women in the workplace due to the "global" sentiment toward women, but their position in the economy made them indispensable. Outside of the suffrage movement, what steps were taken to ensure women's rights in the workplace? Women must've been a serious consideration in future Progressive movements because women had become deeply ingrained into society outside of the home. I look forward to exploring this topic in the next few weeks.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stood out during this week's lectures and readings was the general lack of success that laborers and labor organizations had in striking against their owners and overseers. In many of the major strikes touched upon, like the Pullman strike and the great strike of 1877, labor was put down violently by mill and factory owners with the added power of federal intervention through the use of federal troops. After these strikes were resolved in this fashion, the strikers rarely got any of the demands they had called for. I wonder at what point did this trend change and reform began to outweigh the wishes of factory owners to cut costs and continue to lower wages or keep hours and conditions at the status quo?
ReplyDeleteI think my favorite theme during this week's lecture was the primary political discourse of the time period over the "spoils system." To think that it was able to grip the entire political system so greatly that the president himself was assassinated over the debate underscores just how prevalent corrupt politics were in the Gilded Age. In retrospect, it is quite obvious that we currently appreciate the efforts of the Mugwamps to reform the system; however, it is also easy to see just how powerful the lure of Stalwarts was as they handed out essentially free jobs just for political support. A question I have over the lectures was where did women tend to stand on this political issue? It is probably difficult to tell considering their relative lack of political efficacy at the time period.
ReplyDeleteI thought an interesting theme this week was the fact that the government virtually always sided with the business owners during this time period. As mentioned by Professor Dickerson, it wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt became president that the government became more of a neutral negotiator in these disputes. I think that this relationship between government and the strikers was both unhealthy and would ultimately contribute to the progressive movement as the working class became sick of government continually working against them. My question for the week is: how much money did the corporations spend, in comparison to their total profits, on buying off government officials?
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing to me in this reading was the force and violence that the government was willing to use in order to crush strikes. The government almost always sided with the corporations over the workers. One of the reasons was clearly the power and influence the corporations had over politics and this clearly represents corrupt politics in the gilded age. How will the power and influence corporations have over politics be prevented and when will the government side with workers over the corporation?
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting theme for me during lecture this week was the rise of unions, and the different measures laborers took to contest the combined power of both the Corporations and the Federal Government. What most interested me was the fact that the federal government often used federal troops to stop any sort of strike on the part of the laborers, and this highlights the corruption of government and the system of patronage that was prevalent at this time period. The usage of spoils systems and a trickle down effect of patronage led to the corruption of politics and governmental support for coproatoins on the municipal, state, and federal levels. The rise of Union Federations was a response to this, but to me, it seems as if any real progress for the Laborer would not be possible without aid from the federal government. With law on the side of the corporations, it would be difficult to make any sort of progress. Labor Unions saw this, and tried to combat it by electing their own leaders, but with the system of patronage and corruption already in place, it was increasingly difficult if not impossible. This would not change until the impartial intervention of Theodore Roosevelt. My question for this week would be, besides the system of patronage and the spoils system, what motivated the government to so adamantly side with the corporation and its leaders? Wouldn't the workers who made everything happen be a worthy side to aid as well?
ReplyDelete