The
article by Stromquist addresses the municipal reform of politics in the city of
Cleveland. He argues that the middle class achievements in political
reform have been overestimated, and there has not been enough attention paid to
the restructuring of municipal politics due to class warfare. Social
turmoil ensued when the middle-class skilled laborers or old immigrants clashed
with newer immigrants looking for unskilled factory jobs, especially when
protests and strikes broke out which were backed by trade and labor unions.
This social turmoil on both sides of the economic strata added to the
decay of the party system, which in turn helped to shape the political
structure of municipal politics in Cleveland. Stromquist says "What
we have lacked is a more precise understanding of how the social turmoil of
these decades intersected with a decaying party system to produce changes in American
politics, particularly at the municipal level, that created openings for reform"[1]. Although admittedly Cleveland was not
representative of a large class of American municipalities, it “reveals with
particular clarity the interplay of class forces in constituting a new politics
of reform”[2].
Flanagan
argues in her article that the male and female City Clubs, with their
involvement in the local politics (particularly in the city of Chicago) and
conflicting views on municipal issues, were mainly responsible for shaping
progressive reform. She gives
specific details regarding the male and female City Clubs with regards to the
municipal sanitation services, public education, and the issue of police power
(especially during labor strikes).
She argues that, “the vision pursued by members of the Woman’s City Club
has not been studied, in large part because of the tendency in Progressive Era
political history to study men”[3]. She argues that men and women drew
their conclusions regarding municipal reform from their daily experiences,
where men focused primarily on profitability and fiscal efficiency and women
relied on their experiences in the home environment and sought the well being
of everyone[4].
I
think both of these points are excellent and definitively valid, and I don’t
think it would be appropriate to assume that one historian is more correct than
the other. Both focus on different
aspects of progressive reform methods in different cities. Cleveland was better suited to reform
through labor unions and class distinctions since its economy was based on
transportation and heavy manufacturing, and it wasn’t a primary storm center of
labor conflict like other large American cities[5]. Chicago had very high membership
(totaling in the thousands for each) and political involvement from the city
clubs for both men and women[6]. Also, Chicago had a long history of
prominent and powerful women ever since the creation of Hull House and other
settlement houses in the 1880’s.
The common denominator in each article is that a minority group (the
immigrant working class in Stromquist’s and women in Flanagan’s) had differing
viewpoints on social issues. These
both eventually led to escalation in the form of strikes and police violence,
which brought attention to the issues and eventually led each to put
progressive reform policies into place.
[1]
Shelton Stromquist, The Crucible of
Class: Cleveland Politics and the Origins of Municipal Reform in the
Progressive Era, (Journal of Urban History, Vol. 23 No. 2, Sage Publishing,
January 1997), 195.
[2]
Ibid, 197.
[3]
Maureen A. Flanagan, Gender and Urban
Political Reform: The City Club and the Woman’s City Club of Chicago in the
Progressive Era, (The American Historical Review, Vol. 95, No. 4,
University of Chicago Press on behalf of the American Historical Association,
October, 1990), 1044.
[4]
Ibid, 1046.
[5]
Stromquist, 196.
[6]
Flanagan, 1035.
I enjoyed your post and how you highlighted the fact that both articles represented minorities who helped shaped the Progressive movement. I also agreed that both articles were correct. However, I believed that the working-class and the women organizations had a relationship of interdependence on one another to shape Progressivism. In other words, the working-class brought attention to aspects of industrial life that needed reform through strikes and riots. However, they did not have political power to bring about the change in a tangible form as Stromquist notes, "But lacking, as they most often did, permanent political organization, workers could not in the end dictate outcomes" (204). Thus, the women organizations came into the picture of progressive reform. The women organizations, such as the Women's City Council, recognized the problems of the working-class and wished to change things for the betterment of all the people involved, "Thus women applied their experience of how the home worked to what a city government should try to achieve" (Flanagan, 1046). To put it quite simply, if the working-class never cried out for reform, women organizations would not have felt the need to change the city with their political influence, to create a better home for all.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your points of views on both writers ideas for a reformed society. I think the difference in the two cities, is that Cleveland was a highly industrialized city, whereas Chicago was a meat packing city. "Joseph G. McCoy, an Illinois livestock dealer, encouraged railroad executives to run a line from the (Texas)prairies to Chicago, the meat packing center.' Cleveland howerver was one of the top industrial centers in the United States. Rockefeller had monopolized the Ohio oil market and not only that had a vested interest in the Erie Railroad that shipped his oil. The anti-trust problems arose from his business dealings. Rockefeller, being a Cleveland resident, would be a target for Stromquists platform for the problems with Class. While Flanagans stance seemed less to do with industry and workinman because she didnt have as much insight on that particular subject, but more to do with helpiing the community by means of charity.
ReplyDelete1. "American a Narratie History" Tindall /Shi, W.W Norton and Co. NY, NY. p597
http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pid=I4
What an excellent post!! You wrote a thorough explanation of each article and made some great points at the end. I also agree that deciding which group had the greatest influence is a little far reaching, particularly since I have limited understanding of the topic. As you explained, it seems that each group described in the articles had the effect they did on munipical reform from their unique situations....Cleveland being an industrial town and the clubs of Chicago, particularly the Women's City Club, had more precedence than most clubs of the time. I like how you tied in Hull House, since the Flanagan mentions the tools the Hull House gave to women to "bypass" the male control and form their own type of leadership.[1]Thanks again for a great post!
ReplyDelete1. Maureen A. Flanagan, "Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Women's City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era", in The American Historical Review, Vol. 95, No. 4, (October 1990), pg. 1045.