Was the Progressive Era really progressive?

After reading Gilmore's book and listening to the "pro" and "con" sides of the focus question by our guest scholars, it became evident that the Progressive Era was not entirely progressive. Many positive changes took place, but the interests of all groups did not improve during this time period. During this era, there were many groups who had their own agendas and considered themselves to be progressive. Many acted because they felt their way of life or position in society was being threatened while others sought social welfare and social justice. They consisted of the middle class white man, white and African-American women, and immigrants.
Many factors that influenced this time period include industrialization and urbanization, the wave of immigration, the rise of big business, working conditions, poverty, suffrage, and health initiatives. Progress was made in the areas of controlling big business, preserving the environment and natural resources, labor laws, food safety laws, education, and political reform. However, it cannot be ignored that the plight of African-Americans during this time may have improved in theory but not in practice. It was pointed out during the workshop that there were more lynching during this time than any other and it was widely accepted in the South during the time Jim Crow laws. The Reconstruction Era was better for African-Americans than this time period. Although their rights were not on the agenda of the Democratic or Republican parties until 1948 and the Civil Rights Act was not signed until 1964, during the Progressive Era African-American women were able to work as community advocates and make conditions better because they were not considered a threat as were African-American men.
The Progressive Era was a time in which several positive changes took place, but many improvements occurred before and after as well, such as FDR’s New Deal programs--many had already been formed and used previously. The door was opened because the roots for progress were there already, but it is important to note who was left behind during this time period.

Last Saturday's controversy session was probably one the best sessions to date. Dr. Gerstle and the graduate students, Ansley and Nicholas provided excellent background information and presented solid arguments to support their sides of the focus question. As Nick said, this was an excellent example of how a controversy activity can work and how it is possible for the consensus to fall somewhere in the middle.

After studying the language, religion, food, music of immigrants, and industrialization in the U.S., it is apparent that immigrants have changed America, but America has changed them as well. Depending on a specific time period, the attitudes toward immigrants have varied from one of welcome to one of suspicion, hostility, and exclusion. Depending on physical appearance, religion, how well immigrants blended in with American society and whether or not they were useful for the economy and well-being of American citizens was a major factor in determining that. Dr. Gerstle also mentioned that the pattern is repeating itself, citing the current immigration and naturalization debates that are ongoing in the U.S.

After listening to the pro and con presentations and having the opportunity to develop an argument with Charlie, listening to the viewpoint of the other members of my group and the ending discussion, I was able to gain more insight into the topic and look at it with a broader lens. I feel that if the focus is on immigration during the 19th century, immigrants changed this country more than American changed them. They were the work force that helped the U.S. change from an agrarian to industrial society.

On a final note, participating in the TAH workshops these past two years has resulted in greater enthusiasm for examining topics in U.S. history and a tremendous desire to use this model in the classroom to foster critical thinking and create a deeper understanding of events in history.

Joan