engine of souls | forum 2

The symbiotic relationship between the immigrants and the big city party machines was mutually beneficial during the Gilded Age and during the Progressive Era because the big city bosses earned votes from the immigrants and in turn aided in their survival. The big city party machines acted as a welcome paternal prescence for the immigrants, helping them to find jobs and homes. In return all they asked for were votes and support from the immigrants.

-- Edited by piracine at 13:58, 2009-01-13

While it is known that some of the political machines and bosses were corrupt, that some used the immigrants, it was also true that immigrants benefited from the political machines.
In Mayors and Money by Ester R. Fuchs, he credits the political machines of Chicago for forcing the state to assume welfare costs and other reform actions.
The political machines were also one of the best ways for Irish immigrant enfranchisement, as political bosses, helping themselves in the action true, would help and support the Irish immigrants in return for votes, making their lives better, finding them jobs and homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machines

             The question is, how can the relationship between party machines and immigrants be considered mutually beneficial, when they still resided in slums, ghettos, and barely got by, if at all? Jacob Riis, discussing in "The Jews of New York"(1896), how the only "mutually beneficial" connection immigrants had, was with other immigrants of similar origin, made it clear."The poverty they have brought us is black and bitter; they crowd as do no other living beings to save space, which is rent, and where they go they make slums...They slave and starve to make money...stick together in good and evil report since all the world was against New York's ghetto"

Brandon and Becca SAY:
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, OPPURTUNITY


America in the Porgressive Era continued to push the ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Oppurtunity for immigrants in the United States. From1891-to 1900, over 3 million immigrants entered the country, many Italians, Russian, and Polish searching for better work and oppurtunity for them and their children. America welcomed them with open arms.

"Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -Emma Lazarus (Engraved on the Stature of Liberty)

America used immigrants in the country to build the workforce necessary to keep with the rapid pace of industrialization. Without immigrants, railroads could not have been made, and man power required for factories would not have been met. In addition to jobs, which were better than their old country, immigrants quickly became citizens in 5 years, gaining the right to vote. They could also send their children to school for free.
Progressive Era installed new measures for protecting ones own vote, improved public education, and helped better the working conditions of many immigrants.

Education was important to immigrants. It provided their children with oppurtunity, as expressed in this quote below.

"Education was free. That subject my father had written about repeatedly, as comprising his chief hope for us children, the essence of American opportunity, the treasure that no thief could touch, nor even misfortune or poverty. It was the one thing that he was able to promise us when he sent for us; surer, safer, than bread or shelter. The incident impressed me more than anything I had heard in advance of the freedom of education in America. It was a concrete proof--almost the thing itself. One had to experience it to understand it.
SOURCE: Mary Antin, The Promised Land, 1912 (Jewish immigrant arrived in 1894).

Compulsury School attendance lawas as well as Child Labor Laws protected children from labor and encouraged children to go to school.

Political Liberty also was important. The following expains this value and how America gave more oppurtunity for democracy than other countries. Another thing that makes me like this country is that I can share in the government. In Sweden my father never had a vote, and my brothers never could have voted because there is a property qualification that keeps out the poor people, and they had no chance to make money. Here any man of good character can have a vote after he has been a short time in the country, and people can elect him to any office. There are no aristocrats to push him down, and say that he is not worthy because his father was poor. Some Swedes have become Governors of States, and many who landed here poor boys are now very rich.
- From A Swedish Emigrant's Story: Axel JarlsonIndependent, LV (Jan. 8, 1903), 88 93.

During this time, the right to vote was protected even more than before. The secret ballots and direct election of senators, gave more direct electoral power to the people.

Keith and Christian



Muller v. Oregon 1906 - upheld Oregon law, restricting women to 10 hour work day.

many states passed safety and sanitation codes for industry, closed harmful trades to youth.

federal farm loan act -


workingsman compensation act -

Triangle Shirtwaist Fire - the fire caused many state lagislatures to regulate work days and conditions.

1916 - 36 states passed laws regulating the work day and age children could work at.

Roosevelt supported the Anthracite Coal Strike, heping workers to reduce 10 hours to 9, increse by 10% to pay, & safety regulations.

Bureau of Corparations - helped to take down monopolies. moniter business and interstate commerce.

Elkins(1903) and Hepburn(1906) Acts - helped regulate railraods, and abuse of rebates.


-- Edited by keithfortin at 13:53, 2009-01-13

Leslie wrote:

---

James wrote:

---

While it is known that some of the political machines and bosses were corrupt, that some used the immigrants, it was also true that immigrants benefited from the political machines.
In Mayors and Money by Ester R. Fuchs, he credits the political machines of Chicago for forcing the state to assume welfare costs and other reform actions.
The political machines were also one of the best ways for Irish immigrant enfranchisement, as political bosses, helping themselves in the action true, would help and support the Irish immigrants in return for votes, making their lives better, finding them jobs and homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machines

---

It helped the Irish immigrants who followed the system. Those who did not want to participate in a system of corrupt votes in return for favors were threatened and harrassed.

---

            Also, didn't party machines pay immigrants a sort of welfare, for "support" when times were hard? Pushing for the state to pay that welfare would be weight off THEIR backs. And like I said before, the immigrants, the few that actually saw positive effects, were tools, the help was just a way to make the cogs run for the machine.


-- Edited by TaranComeDown at 14:03, 2009-01-13

James wrote:

---

While it is known that some of the political machines and bosses were corrupt, that some used the immigrants, it was also true that immigrants benefited from the political machines.
In Mayors and Money by Ester R. Fuchs, he credits the political machines of Chicago for forcing the state to assume welfare costs and other reform actions.
The political machines were also one of the best ways for Irish immigrant enfranchisement, as political bosses, helping themselves in the action true, would help and support the Irish immigrants in return for votes, making their lives better, finding them jobs and homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machines

---

Also, while this system may have helped Irish immigrant enfranchisement, it neglected the enfranchisement of other groups of immigrants, and the association of immigrants to a group that was associated with corruption did not benefit them, immigrants already were not approved of in America, this was just another method that Americans could use to justify not granting immigrants rights, something that would not be beneficial to them only to the business leaders.


-- Edited by Leslie at 14:02, 2009-01-13

LOWER FIFTH AVENUE FREE FROM NOONDAY CONGESTION BENEFICIAL RESULT OF NEW FACTORY COMMISSION LAWS; Limitation in Number of Employes on a Floor Has Led Many Garment Firms to Seek More Suitable Buildings Away From the Avenue ;- Brighter Realty and Leasing Conditions Below Twenty-third Street ;- Radical Changes Shown Within Last Six Months.
E-MAIL Save By ROBERT GRIER COOKE, President of the Fifth Avenue Association.

September 6, 1914, Sunday

Section: SPECIAL ARTICLES DRAMA FASHIONS REAL ESTATE AUTOMOBILES BUSINESS FINANCIAL REAL ESTATE, Page X9

the fire may not have helped workers right away, but it did open the eyes to other factory owners of the dangers of the workplace, helping workers in the long run.

we arent debating on how long it took to help the labor movement, we're debating on whether or not it did help.


" Why did it take so long (1916) for them to help the labor movement? Thousands of people suffered before 1916 you know."

so basically, your saying it did help?

Leslie- It helped the Irish immigrants who followed the system. Those who did not want to participate in a system of corrupt votes in return for favors were threatened and harrassed.

Taran- The question is, how can the relationship between party machines and immigrants be considered mutually beneficial, when they still resided in slums, ghettos, and barely got by, if at all? Jacob Riis, discussing in "The Jews of New York"(1896), how the only "mutually beneficial" connection immigrants had, was with other immigrants of similar origin, made it clear."The poverty they have brought us is black and bitter; they crowd as do no other living beings to save space, which is rent, and where they go they make slums...They slave and starve to make money...stick together in good and evil report since all the world was against New York's ghetto"
Also, didn't party machines pay immigrants a sort of welfare, for "support" when times were hard?Pushing for the state to pay that welfare would be weight of THEIR backs. And like I said before, the immigrants, the few that actually saw positive effects, were tools, the help was just a way to make the cogs run for the machine.

But- Even if the immigrants were being forced to vote you cannot deny that the party machines were helping the immigrants to live. If all that was wanted in return for a roof over their head was a vote then the immigrants should have given it.
I admit that some party machines were cruel, but not all of them were, even if they were corrupt they did care for the immigrants.
Taran- Coming over to a new world will leave any person to begin at the bottom. Residing in slums and ghettos was normal until the immigrants were able to find a good job, which they found with the help of the party bosses. When they worked hard they earned more money and better jobs, rising up in the ranks to work management jobs.
Also, the immigrants may seemed to be tools but someone has to be on the bottom to hold everyone up, and at least someone (The party machines) cared for these people on the bottom and tried to help them, more than the government did during the Gilded Era and the Progressive Period.
I mean, during the gilded era and the Progressive period the reformers and socialists just began to care about the state the immigrants lived in.

keithfortin wrote:

---

we arent debating on how long it took to help the labor movement, we're debating on whether or not it did help.


" Why did it take so long (1916) for them to help the labor movement? Thousands of people suffered before 1916 you know."

so basically, your saying it did help?

---

Not really. Obviously, it helped a little but it hindered it more than help.

James wrote:

---

The other immigrants enfranchisement were neglected simply due to the timing of their arrival. The Irish arrived en masse when the political machines were just gaining power and therefore were used by and used the political machines.

---

The British and Germans had also arrived in large numbers, not as large a the Irish, but still as significant amount. The fact that they were not used by the political machines made the system not beneficial to them.

-- Edited by Leslie at 14:05, 2009-01-13

Rachel wrote:

---

OKAYY ! well walters all wrong because progressivism actually was VERY successful ;commenting on what he said

             1) The anti-sherman trust act actually gave the government the  power to cut off trusts between big corporations which gave small businesses a chance to get a profit. also the Interstate Commerce Act made shipping rates reasonable and just ; rates had to be published and secret rebates were outlawed so that big corporations wouldnt be favored and also so that small corporations could ship their goods at the same price as a large business which was fair.

             


Just because they had the power doesnt mean they did anything. I already proved how they did more bills against unions than big business.

Robert and Greg
Through failure to significantly address anti-immigrant religious discrimination, the Progressives remained untrue to the American ideals of equality and opportunity. Several groups felt the sentiment at its worst. Those immigrants who were Catholic or Jewish faced animosity from many "native" Protestant Americans. Hiram Wesley Evans, in a 1926 article entitled "The Klan's Fight for America," put these ideas into writing as follows: "Jews or Catholics are lavish with their caustic criticism of anything American. Nothing is immune; our great men, our historic struggles and sacrifices, our customs and personal traits, our "Puritan consciences"--all have been sacrificed without mercy." His object was to paint the religious minorities as anti-American, although large numbers of nativist Americans needed no convincing. There were numerous other groups founded for the expressed purpose of depriving Jews and Catholics of their rights and opportunities, including the American Protective Association. When swearing a loyalty oath to the APA, penned in 1893, members recited "I will use my influence to promote the interest of all Protestants everywhere in the world that I may be; that I will not employ a roman Catholic in any capacity, if I can procure the services of a Protestant." Unfortunately, employment discrimination was not limited to the APA. There is no question that the religious discrimination harmed many new immigrants. One question that may be asked, though, is where the Progressives were during all of this? If they had been truly following the ideal of opportunity, surely they would have tried to ban employment and wage discrimination. Had they been trying to support equality, surely this would not have gone without acknowledgement.

My responses will appear in hideous dayglo blue.

becca wrote:

---

Brandon and Becca SAY:
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, OPPURTUNITY


America in the Porgressive Era continued to push the ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Oppurtunity for immigrants in the United States. From1891-to 1900, over 3 million immigrants entered the country, many Italians, Russian, and Polish searching for better work and oppurtunity for them and their children. America welcomed them with open arms.

"Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" -Emma Lazarus (Engraved on the Stature of Liberty)

As we stated in one of our claims, America by no means welcomed Japanese and Chinese immigrants "with open arms." The progressive inaction and compliance to the standard shows their lack of comittment to equality.

America used immigrants in the country to build the workforce necessary to keep with the rapid pace of industrialization. Without immigrants, railroads could not have been made, and man power required for factories would not have been met. In addition to jobs, which were better than their old country, immigrants quickly became citizens in 5 years, gaining the right to vote. They could also send their children to school for free.
Progressive Era installed new measures for protecting ones own vote, improved public education, and helped better the working conditions of many immigrants.

The use of immigrant labor far predates the Progressive Era. Also, the Progressives were indeed responsible for the reforms listed, but they did not create most of them with immigrants in mind. The protection of votes, expansion of public education, and support of the labor movement were as much "immigration issues" as the anti-trust movement was. They certainly had effects on immigrants, but by no means were the reforms made for them.

Education was important to immigrants. It provided their children with oppurtunity, as expressed in this quote below.

"Education was free. That subject my father had written about repeatedly, as comprising his chief hope for us children, the essence of American opportunity, the treasure that no thief could touch, nor even misfortune or poverty. It was the one thing that he was able to promise us when he sent for us; surer, safer, than bread or shelter. The incident impressed me more than anything I had heard in advance of the freedom of education in America. It was a concrete proof--almost the thing itself. One had to experience it to understand it.
SOURCE: Mary Antin, The Promised Land, 1912 (Jewish immigrant arrived in 1894).

Compulsury School attendance lawas as well as Child Labor Laws protected children from labor and encouraged children to go to school.

Political Liberty also was important. The following expains this value and how America gave more oppurtunity for democracy than other countries. Another thing that makes me like this country is that I can share in the government. In Sweden my father never had a vote, and my brothers never could have voted because there is a property qualification that keeps out the poor people, and they had no chance to make money. Here any man of good character can have a vote after he has been a short time in the country, and people can elect him to any office. There are no aristocrats to push him down, and say that he is not worthy because his father was poor. Some Swedes have become Governors of States, and many who landed here poor boys are now very rich.
- From A Swedish Emigrant's Story: Axel JarlsonIndependent, LV (Jan. 8, 1903), 88 93.

During this time, the right to vote was protected even more than before. The secret ballots and direct election of senators, gave more direct electoral power to the people.

Once again, these are hardly immigration issues. They were political issues. They certainly had effects on immigrants, but immigration issues would seem to me to be issues of obtaining citizenship, jobs, and freedom from oppression due to religious and ethnic differences. Asians were denied citizenship under the Progressives' watch, and they did nothing to stop hiring discrimination against Catholics and Jews. In doing so, they denied these immigrants their opportunities, liberty, and equality in America, or at least showed that they had no particular committment to the ideals for them.

---

 

One of the principle aims of the Progressive Era was to check the advancing power of big business. How successful were they in achieving their goal by 1915? 

 

 

Progressives during this era were UNSUCCESSFUL at achieving their goal of checking the power of big business!

 

 

-Despite when Theodore Roosevelt took office he said that he was going to enforce the shoddily written Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890, really what was happening was that Roosevelt and a select few were going to decide which trusts to bust. He would be the one to decide whether a business was a bad trust that needed to be busted or a good trust that might need some regulations.

 

 

-The Sherman Anti Trust Act did not stop big businesses from prospering or even growing. The law was not passed to prevent one business from dominating in a specific industry, but merely to ensure it had competition. One of the senators, George Hoar, who wrote the bill even said that any company, that got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could, wouldnt be covered under the act, therefore it would be unlawful to bust. Therefore theres no way Progressives could have been successful in checking the advancement of big businesses.

 

 

-Five years after the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed they Supreme Courts limited the governments (Progressives) power over monopolies through the decision of United States v. E. C. Knight Co. case. If the government truly was going to deter big businesses from spreading their power that was definitely a step in the wrong direction.

 

 

-It was during Roosevelts administration that the major transportation trust, Northern Securities Company was broken up due to unfair trade practices, this of course was a success in terms of stopping the advancement, but later presidents wouldnt have the skills or knowledge that he had. Woodrow Wilsons Federal Trade Commission did not have the power to take action against all big businesses, banks and transportation companies, such as what the Northern Securities Company was, were exempt from this bill. How could you stop advancing power of big business unless you have a standard for all industries.

-- Edited by Zachary W. at 02:54, 2009-01-14

Beliefs such as the ones felt by Madison Grant spread and were widely believed by many, largely due to the pseudoscience created to support them. As one reformer declared, "All the great problems ... are tied up with the one great problem of foreign immigration." As early as 1894 prominent Bostonians formed the Immigration Restriction League to promote a literacy test for immigrants. This test only succeeded in showing employers the level of schooling that immigrants had recieved. However, it was unable to accurately show racial inferiority, and denied immigrants equal opportunity. The American Federation of Labor, fearing immigrant job competition, also endorsed restriction. This reform also won support from many progressives.

piracine wrote:

---

Taran- Coming over to a new world will leave any person to begin at the bottom. Residing in slums and ghettos was normal until the immigrants were able to find a good job, which they found with the help of the party bosses. When they worked hard they earned more money and better jobs, rising up in the ranks to work management jobs.
Also, the immigrants may seemed to be tools but someone has to be on the bottom to hold everyone up, and at least someone (The party machines) cared for these people on the bottom and tried to help them, more than the government did during the Gilded Era and the Progressive Period.
I mean, during the gilded era and the Progressive period the reformers and socialists just began to care about the state the immigrants lived in.

---

             That's if the pipe dream that authors like Horatio Alger portayed in books like Ragged Dick were more than just that, dreams. The facts are, that less than 5% of population in many cities held 2/3 of wealth, sometimes that percentage of wealthy citizens was as low as 2.4%. In situations where class division was that wide, and conditions for ALL of the working class, regardless of how early the immigrants got here, were so bad(a point I already made), then what is this "progress" and "aid" they're supposedly seeing?



-- Edited by TaranComeDown at 13:24, 2009-01-15

piracine wrote:

---

Leslie wrote:

---

James wrote:

---

While it is known that some of the political machines and bosses were corrupt, that some used the immigrants, it was also true that immigrants benefited from the political machines.
In Mayors and Money by Ester R. Fuchs, he credits the political machines of Chicago for forcing the state to assume welfare costs and other reform actions.
The political machines were also one of the best ways for Irish immigrant enfranchisement, as political bosses, helping themselves in the action true, would help and support the Irish immigrants in return for votes, making their lives better, finding them jobs and homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machines

---

Also, while this system may have helped Irish immigrant enfranchisement, it neglected the enfranchisement of other groups of immigrants, and the association of immigrants to a group that was associated with corruption did not benefit them, immigrants already were not approved of in America, this was just another method that Americans could use to justify not granting immigrants rights, something that would not be beneficial to them only to the business leaders.


-- Edited by Leslie at 14:02, 2009-01-13

---

   But the immigrants were slowly being introduced into the American society in the Progressive Era as people worked to improve their living conditions and their lives, Right?

---

Their living conditions and lives were not really improved if groups of immigrants were placed in areas togethewhere as Jacob Riis stated in The Jews of New York they knew that "all the world was against New York's ghetto." That was not introducing them into American Society

Group 5: success
Clayton Antitrust Act: this strengthened the provisions of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, it contained a clause that kept unions from being prosecuted as trusts
Other Provisions:
1. prohibits price discrimination
2. prohibits owning of more than one competing corporation
3. prohibits merges and acquisition that would substantially lessen competition

-- Edited by Shorey at 13:21, 2009-01-15

Leslie wrote:

---

James wrote:

---

You have to remember that the "dream" of the Horatio Algier was a reality for some individuals. Take for example Andrew Carnegie, he started with nothing and rose to control general steel. There was the possiblity for advancement for any and all immigrants.

---

Advancement for everyone wasn't entirely possible when they lived in the slums and were forced to work instead of going to school and getting an education to help support their family.


-- Edited by Leslie at 13:09, 2009-01-15

---

Three words:
Compulsary Attendance Laws

The Elkins Act in 1903 ended the common practice of the railroads granting rebates to their most valued customers. The great oil and livestock companies of the day paid the rates stated by the railroads, but demanded rebates on those payments. The giants paid significantly less for rail service than farmers and other small operators.

Shorey,

The Clayton Act was not fully effective, because the Supreme Court also did consider the labor unions under the Act also, so labor unions were under court injuction anyway, which hurt them. The progressivees inevitably took the whole world down with them.

joel the not so brave wrote:

---

The Elkins Act in 1903 ended the common practice of the railroads granting rebates to their most valued customers. The great oil and livestock companies of the day paid the rates stated by the railroads, but demanded rebates on those payments. The giants paid significantly less for rail service than farmers and other small operators.

---

If the giants paid significantly less for rail service than farmers and other small operators, how is that successful in checking the advancing power of big business? That helps big business extend its power!!!!!

Tyler W. wrote:

---

Shorey,

The Clayton Act was not fully effective, because the Supreme Court also did consider the labor unions under the Act also, so labor unions were under court injuction anyway, which hurt them. The progressivees inevitably took the whole world down with them.

---

So, what you're saying is that the Proggressive Age was not successful because it did not entirely shut down big buisness?  We believe it was a success because it helps to REGULATE big buisnesses, not completely hut them down.