I have very little knowledge of political history, particularly of American history; hence this question is of interest to me. Whatever little I know, I think that the spirit of the American Revolution was a partial (incomplete) execution (sort of replay) of the testament left behind by the failed French revolution that started about a century ago (1789).

In my opinion the essence of both of this revolution was the rise of (industrial) revolutionary working class with the slogan “droit au travail” (the right to work) supported by the rising revolutionary bourgeoisie against the conservative clergy and the monarchy with a base in the backward land owners (in the case of America it included the slave owners).

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Malek & readers,

It appears you learned your American history from European sources?

The opposite view is that the American Revolution and the Revolutionary War (1776-1783) were quite a success --given the subsequent establishment of constitutional, republican government. We did have some help from France, though this was before the French Revolution. The French Revolution, on the other hand, culminated in the terror, and subsequently in Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars--lasting down to 1815 when the French monarchy was restored.

This is far from claiming that the early American republic was perfect; and its imperfections did lead to the Civil War. In any case, all of this is pretty far from the Gilded Age--after the Civil War--, its problems, eventual reforms and the advent of the Progressive Era.

Please re-read the question.Your comments are about a century off!

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

I have very little knowledge of political history, particularly of American history; hence this question is of interest to me. Whatever little I know, I think that the spirit of the American Revolution was a partial (incomplete) execution (sort of replay) of the testament left behind by the failed French revolution that started about a century ago (1789).

The social issues addressed during the American Gilded Age are similar to those being experienced by the new Russian democracy and the pre-emerging Chinese one. The entrepreneurs who got in on the ground floor often made a tremendous amount of money and temporarily monopolized emerging markets and processes. Then as now the very rich were juxtaposed against the poor in the socially concerned media.. The very term "gilded" was used to suggest that there was a veneer of gold plate covering a nation of widespread filth and poverty.

The general leftward movement of modern democratic society is underpinned by ever expanding wealth. The Civil War, and post-Civil War constitutional amendments swept vast unrealized powers into the hands of the central government. But the impetus for federal and "progressive" action by the State was apparent much earlier.

In his address of December 6th, 1825 President John Quincy Adams lays out his plan for expansive governmental actions, and even uses the word "progressive:

-----

The great object of the institution of civil government is the improvement of the condition of those who are parties to the social compact, and no government in whatever form constituted can accomplish the lawful ends of its institution but in proportion as it improves the condition of those over whom it is established. Roads and canals, by multiplying and facilitating the communications and intercourse between distant regions and multitudes of men, are among the most important means of improvement. But moral, political, intellectual improvement are duties assigned by the Author of our existence to social no less than to individual man.

For the fulfillment of those duties, governments are invested with power, and to the attainment of the end – the progressive improvement of the condition of the governed

------

For many of the politicians of the era, "progressivism" was just a name given to the gaggle of busybodies who wanted to used the power of government to impose on their fellow citizens the laws they preferred.

Intrusions into business as "trust-busting" and the regulation of behavior, as was accomplished through the Harrison Act of 1914, all tended to focus most governmental authority in Washington. When the prohibition of alcohol was first contemplated, the idea of "States Rights" was still strong in the minds of politicians. So strong in fact that the notion that the federal government could "prohibit" an act or a substance demanded the passage of a constitutional amendment. But within a few years such niceties went by the wayside and the federal government decided it had the power to routinely ban or control any substance by mere statute.

Progressivism is not a single coherent doctrine. It is a vague term used to justify actions that tend toward the general equalization of social authority and redistribution of wealth. Thus it is understood as largely a left-wing enthusiasm. It proceeds today under assorted titles, checked (as it was in the beginning by Andrew Jackson) by the give-and-take of our more conservative law makers.

H.G. Callaway

My comment was a qualitative assessment of the general historical development covered by the two revolutions, without any consideration of particular periods, events or personalities. This view was expressed from a more general Marxist perspective (of course without any historical/empirical data in this case) that the economic base supports the superstructure of political, social, cultural, legal etc. institutions of a society or nation and a change in the economic foundation leads (over periods) in the change in the superstructure as a historical process. Any change in the economic foundation is generally and relatively more rapid and can be better defined than the slow change in the superstructure.

My comment was focussed more on the change in the mode of economic production both in France and in America from an feudal/serf/slave - somewhat bonded labout based economy to bourgeiois capitalism based on (“free”) wage labour – a relatively progressive and a qualitative historical development. Historical analysis of the French revolution from this perspective exists, but I am not sure whether similar analysis for American Revolution (with more quantitative and specific historical data) exists or not.

My comment was rather a suggestion that an analysis and understanding of the American Revolution during the specific historical period you mentioned; could be obtained from this perspective.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Here is a short video, about 10 Min., including introductory themes on the Gilded Age about 1870-1890.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeWE_FaIP6k

This is part of a longer documentary originally aired on U.S. public television and PBS.

Its a story of industrialization, gigantic wealth and growing inequalities which eventually represented a threat to the political system.

Have a look.

Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

Impressive post from Stephen!

I think that in spite of similarities, today's divergence between rich and poor follows a different dynamic. Not a historian here, so I'll try the economics angle.

It is hardly surprising that at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, no large enterprises existed yet. Businesses were still small, in competition (mostly) locally, and by the way, this model is mirrored in the entertainment industry of the day and of more recent years. Local, competing, small scale.

It should also not be terribly surprising that in the early years of an industrial revolution, certain individual visionaries would "get it," before anyone else. And that government would not have had the vision and the foresight to write the necessary checks, to reign in the very ambitious visionaries, for the greater good. Before the necessary competition could even establish itself, to self-regulate the industrialized early giants.

The populist rhetoric most likely sounds the same, then and now.

However, I think that today, it's not so much that industrial giants have no competition, as it was then. Although yes, there is always a trend to consolidation, as any technology matures. (But we have anti-trust laws today, unlike before 1890.) I think that today, it has more to do with the specialization required of the work force. For example, farm and factory automation eliminate a huge number of lower-skilled jobs, that were once the bread and butter of employment numbers.

So the inequality today originates from the work force skill sets/qualifications, rather than from drastically different business models attempting (in vain) to coexist.

Take the parallel in the entertainment industry. Movie theaters, radio, and television, gutted the previous, small scale, local sports and theater industries. This happened decades after the Industrial Revolution, but I think it's the same dynamic taking over. A small number of ridiculously wealthy individuals emerges, enabled by technological advances. The whole world wants to see, pick a name, Brad Pitt acting. No local, small theater actor had that kind of demand for his talents, before movies. No matter how talented he might have been.

(Just saw the video. I disagree that the Carnegies and the Vanderbilts were not "visionaries." These guys understood how to leverage the new technology, sooner than anyone else, in their respective industries. How is that not "vision"? Also, after seeing the video, competition among industrial giants helps their work force too, in that industrial giants also have to compete for talent in their work force. Not the case when there is only one giant in that industry, making it easier to exploit the workers.)

Let's not overlook the fact that the FIRST ON THE SCENE in all technological revolutions make tons of money -- and then competition eventually catches the timid up the early risers. FACEBOOK, MICROSOFT, AMAZON, TESLA all witnessed their founders becoming the richest people on earth. And for the people of the current generation the impressive spectacle seems unfair. But over a few generations the heirs of the Rockefeller's, Mellon's, Gate's, Adams's all settle back into the upper middle classes. Because the human lifespan is so short it is easy to imagine the rich and powerful must always remain so. And so we are agitated to take some wealth from them and spread it around, -- in the name of justice.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

Thanks for your notes.

Your first post got some attention from readers of this thread, and I have a few questions and comments.

The first point is that J.Quincy Adams was in fact a fairly conservative figure. Though he took positions under the earlier administrations of the Jeffersonian Republicans, he is generally thought of as a New England Whig; and the Whigs were the more conservative, business oriented party which replaced the Federalist party of Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. They also contributed quite significantly to the emergence of the Republican party under Lincoln. It is no great surprise that J.Q. Adams favored the expansion of toll roads and canals, which belonged to the typical legislative program of the Whig politicians. Later came the governmental support for the railroads, first from the state governments and later from the federal government. The "Progressivism" you find in J.Q. Adams does not seem to be an example of a "leftward" phenomenon. Quite the contrary. It involved favoritism toward business combined, as we see in your quotation from Adams, with religious piety: "moral, political, intellectual improvement are duties assigned by the Author of our existence to social no less than to individual man." The Whigs also generally favored high tariffs on imported manufacturing goods: "the American system."

Again, you note Andrew Jackson's opposition to Quincy Adams, and Jackson in fact followed Quincy Adams into office as President--after Adam's single term. Jackson was a Democrat, and the first President from the "West." His Vice President, Martin van Buren, is generally considered to be the chief organizer of the Jacksonian Democratic party. Jackson thought that any ordinary person was perfectly capable of exercising the duties of a minor federal appointment; and the origin of the 19th-century political "spoils system" is often attributed to Jackson's influence. Much corruption followed in the extensive development of the spoils system during the Civil War and afterward. This is in fact one of the major problems of the later Gilded Age which you fail to mention or address. But consider the Pendelton act, signed by President Arthur in the 1880's.

The first federal anti-trust legislation came in 1890, the Sherman Anti-trust act of that year. This, in fact was one of the major pieces of reform legislation from the period. Why focus on the later Harrison act of 1914? There is some inclination to think of Progressivism by reference to President Wilson, but recall that Teddy Roosevelt ran against Wilson in 1912 on the platform of the Progressive (or Bull Moose") party. In any case, the reforms of the Progressive Era started well before Wilson's presidency.

What, again, were the major problems of the Gilded Age, addressed by reforms? Two major themes were, anti-monopoly and the fight against corruption. These objectives would not seem to be a matter of a "gaggle of busybodies who wanted to used the power of government to impose on their fellow citizens the laws they preferred."

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

In his address of December 6th, 1825 President John Quincy Adams lays out his plan for expansive governmental actions, and even uses the word "progressive:

-----

The great object of the institution of civil government is the improvement of the condition of those who are parties to the social compact, and no government in whatever form constituted can accomplish the lawful ends of its institution but in proportion as it improves the condition of those over whom it is established. Roads and canals, by multiplying and facilitating the communications and intercourse between distant regions and multitudes of men, are among the most important means of improvement. But moral, political, intellectual improvement are duties assigned by the Author of our existence to social no less than to individual man.

For the fulfillment of those duties, governments are invested with power, and to the attainment of the end – the progressive improvement of the condition of the governed

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kausel & readers,

Thanks for you note and particularly for your emphasis on the problem of corruption --which became ever greater as the Gilded Age developed. The problem of corruption in the Grant administration left a deep mark on the post-Civil War Republican party. Grant's party subsequently became deeply divided between the "Stalwarts" who based their power in the corrupt spoils system and other "radical" and reform elements in the party. The divisions persisted through the rest of the 19th century, as the federal (state and local) spoils system was gradually replaced by means of reform legislation regulating the Civil Service. But at one time, following any major election, thousands of federal employees, including even people working in the post offices, the customs houses, etc, would be thrown out and replaced by the victor's party regulars. The employees were often required to make donations to the party to keep their jobs. Both major parties used similar practices of patronage.

You are right that the Credit Mobilier scandal of the Grant administration created a considerable stink. This had to do with the great railroad corporations, their monopolistic practices and their many "gifts" to federal legislators. The suspicion began to arise--one which became only more prevalent as the Gilded Age advanced--that the large corporate "trusts" had so much power that they could simply "buy" what they wanted from Congress --and the U.S. Senate in particular--the seat of many a major Republican party boss.

A constitutional amendment was required for the direct election of U.S. Senators in each state, since it was generally thought that big corporations would have much more trouble buying up the state electorate --as contrasted with buying up influence over the state legislatures which had formerly selected the state's U.S. Senators.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Corruption was already runaway under Ulysses Grant. The trend would continue on into the Gilded Age. His private secretary worked with officials in the Treasury Department to steal money raised from the tax on whiskey. Many members of his Administration were implicated in the Credit Mobilier affair, which defrauded the American public of common land. Grant could not control his aides.

Dear Callaway,

I found the following wikipedia entry usefull to understand the era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

What striked me the most is that it was an international phenomena and it can't be understood at a national level only.

Regards,

- Louis

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard & readers,

I think the Gilded Age did have international elements to it. But it certainly can be understood on a U.S. national basis--in very significant degree. Would you care to expand on your claim? I'm very doubtful.

The gilded Age and the Progressive Era have been taught in U.S. history for a very long time and all of this belongs to the national self-understanding. Might it be that some international" interests don't see an advantage to the known history of reform?

BTW; Have a look at the following idem from the L.A. Times on the recent scandal concerning college admissions fraud and bribery:

Federal prosecutors accused top CEOs, two Hollywood actresses and a legendary fashion designer of taking part in an audacious scheme to get their children into elite universities through fraud, bribes and lies. Of the 32 parents named in the FBI affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, more than half stand accused of conspiring to bribe their way into USC.

---End quotation

See:

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-college-admissions-scheme-stories-storygallery.html

This seems to indicate some decline in moral restraint among our elites.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

Your claim below seems to neglect the element of government action. For example, Rockefeller's Standard Oil trust was broken up into daughter firms by means of federal anti-trust action. In addition the power of the big banks was significantly limited by adoption of the Federal Reserve act.

Recovery from the excesses of the Gilded Age was a long, slow process, and it didn't happen automatically.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

But over a few generations the heirs of the Rockefeller's, Mellon's, Gate's, Adams's all settle back into the upper middle classes. Because the human lifespan is so short it is easy to imagine the rich and powerful must always remain so. And so we are agitated to take some wealth from them and spread it around, -- in the name of justice.

Dr. Callaway, I'm not sure of what you mean by "excesses of the gilded age" what excesses are you referring to?

This may be straying too far off topic (and excuse the length) but...

In aristocratic governments the aim and object of government is generally understood to be to promote the martial and virtuous character of the people. The idea being (as a holdover from the ancients) to make a better nation we must first create better people. Increase the virtue of the citizen and you increase the nobility and worth of the nation.

As wealth expands and governments transition to democratic forms (commercial-democracies) the relationship of the role of government to the citizenry changes. Government begins to see its primary role as one of making everyone rich.

Washington and Jefferson may have reached the White House by virtue of their nobility and character ... but by Lincoln's time candidates were begging for voter support in return for a promise, not to improve their character, but to increase their wealth. Lincoln's "chicken in every pot" campaign slogan goes hand-in-hand with Ronald Reagan's famous question during his debate with Jimmy Carter:

"Ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago?"

The curious conception that the President of the United States is somehow to be held accountable for the improvement or diminution of every individual's wealth or success.

You are mainly improved, not by your own efforts, but by his!

This conception persists today and seems to be the economic mantra of democratic government.

By the early 20th century wealth redistribution had become the primary aim and end of government, as it was by this that the citizens life was really improved.

(The aristocratic concepts of courage, honor & virtue disappearing from public discourse)

The Theory of Dual Morality suggests these are foundational aims of human moral outlook. The first being the morality of plenty ... WHEN THERE IS ENOUGH FOR ALL - ALL SHOULD GET ENOUGH. The second being WHEN THERE IS NOT ENOUGH FOR ALL, THOSE WHO MERIT MORE SHOULD RECEIVE MORE....

Democracies emerge as the veneer of commercial societies where goods grow abundant. So we are psychologically directed to imagine that "there is enough for all." Under these circumstances the real moral sin comes when those who have too much refuse to share with those who have too little.

Moral debate in western democratic culture focuses a great deal on this problem. Whether we are discussing how many immigrants should enter the country or who should get most in the next round of tax cuts ...

This Robin Hood conception of government came into force around the gilded age. Take from those who have too much and give to those who have too little. This is morally right.

This will certainly continue to be the impetus of government in the decades ahead. With more-and-more goods being produced by fewer and fewer workers, the emphasis will continue to be on wealth redistribution rather than on simple wealth production -- and away from (and even hostile to) and notion that government can be concerned with the citizens "character."

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

In answer to your question, I would say that the excesses of the Gilded Age chiefly consisted of political corruption and monopoly practices which culminated in the impetus for anti-monopoly and anti-trust. As things developed, over the period, corrupt, machine politics increasing favored the large corporate donors who came to replace the prior reliance upon patronage in government jobs and the spoils system. Of course there is a great deal of detail to the story.

Consider, e.g., just the following short quotation from a review of Ron Chernow's biography "Titan" of John D. Rockefeller:

Toward that end, he hatched a conspiracy with the leading Eastern railroads, which secretly promised to give Rockefeller rebates not only for every barrel of oil shipped by Standard Oil but for every barrel of oil shipped by its competitors. It was, in the words of another Rockefeller biographer, ''an instrument of competitive cruelty unparalleled in industry,'' and the other companies quickly saw the handwriting on the wall. In less than six weeks, in the ''Cleveland Massacre'' of 1872, Rockefeller took over 22 of his 26 competitors. ''There was a pressure brought to bear upon my mind,'' one refiner recalled, ''and upon almost all citizens of Cleveland engaged in the oil business, to the effect that . . . if we did not sell out we should be crushed out.''

---End quotation

See:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/reviews/980517.17beattyt.html

One might say that though it is good to compete by offering better products or prices, we don't allow anyone to burn down the neighboring competition. The example speaks to what is called "conspiracy in restraint of trade." Many other examples could be given, and I was hoping to see some of the contributors to this thread digging them up. No doubt, much was accomplished by way of the industrialization of the U.S. in the Gilded Age, but I doubt that many who understand the problems and excesses would want to repeat the process.

Concerning the rest of your comments, it strikes me that you do not consider what has typically been thought of as the overall purposes of constitutional democracy in the U.S. What seems to me of central importance is to observe that great concentrations of wealth, and great inequalities, eventually threaten democratic institutions. That, by the way, is part of the reason that we have anti-trust legislation --starting in 1890. People with great wealth and power tend to get their way, whether or not their activities and aims are consistent with the constitutional objective to "promote the general welfare" and the common good. Our elected officials are supposed to represent us and the public interest.

H.G. Callaway

---you asked---

Dr. Callaway, I'm not sure of what you mean by "excesses of the gilded age" what excesses are you referring to?

I'd say that it was the improvements in transportation (long distance, fast, and relatively cheap) and manufacturing (very large scale and cheap for the consumer), ushered in by the Industrial Revolution, that created the need for anti-trust legislation. Corrupt practices, such as quashing the competition, became quite lucrative, thanks to these technological improvements. Before, some of these corrupt practices would have been difficult or pointless.

Maybe try it this way. These ridiculously rich "early adopters" were not created by some sudden, milestone discoveries in corrupt behavior, but rather, because they were the first to understand how to leverage the new technology. Self-regulation of these new industries had not had a chance to established itself. It may never have had a chance, without anti-trust legislation.

Dr. Callaway,

Concerning your statement:

" ... it strikes me that you do not consider what has typically been thought of as the overall purposes of constitutional democracy in the U.S. What seems to me of central importance is to observe that great concentrations of wealth, and great inequalities, eventually threaten democratic institutions."

I think you are half-right, Dr. Callaway. There are two sides to the moral argument over what is the biggest threat to constitutional democracy.

The first, and the one initially and "primarily" addressed in the constitution is the threat of intrusive government. The Bill of Rights is wholly focused on limiting the powers of government. It has nothing at all to say about limiting the social authority of individuals, corporations, or the wealthy.

The presumption was (and still is with our right-wingers) that private enterprise, without the aid of big-government, can never really do much damage to society. Wealth becomes a problem when it can control the power of an intrusive government. So ... the remedy is not wealth redistribution, the remedy is to keep the power of government limited. If government is small and limited to its role of protection and a court system, the private sector will have little or no interest in manipulating it. (there is nothing to be gained) When government decides it can control, regulate, or prohibit anything and everything, it is then it becomes of paramount importance to businesses to try to direct and control the omnipotent state.

After the Civil War large corporations were touted as the threat to democracy. Controlling, taxing, regulating and even breaking-up these entities became the aim of political reformers. But the power that needed to be swept into the hands of the State to accomplish these aims and ends guaranteed that controlling and manipulating government has had to become a major concern of large corporations.

After all: Law made wealth is much easier to acquire than work made wealth.

This moral dichotomy matches easily with the dual pattern of human moral understanding.

To the left leaning moralists there is plenty to go around, and the biggest threat comes from the opulence not being distributed properly. Too much of it is at the top and not enough elsewhere.

To the right leaning moralists every group, class, or caste needs to stay within its own sphere of authority. Society, for them, is rightly compartmentalized. And the biggest danger comes from government, not from the over-achievers among the people.

The founders of the American republic (recently rebelling against aristocratic over-reach) were of the latter variety and would be considered "conservatives" by today's standards.

For the liberal, wealth gives its holder more choices and greater ability to act. Wealth is a sort of freedom that should be distributed rather equally.

For the conservative, liberty is enhanced by limiting the government's ability to interfere in private society except to enforce good order and customary traditions.

For the liberal, wealth = freedom

For the conservative, small government = liberty.

The two sides battle it out, and under the right circumstances enhance both our freedoms and our liberties. Together, our left wing and our right wing serve as a moral check-and-balance providing all of us the best of both worlds.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

Though you are a bit off-topic, I think you have an interesting perspective on the background moral and political questions and problems --concerning the purpose and functions of constitutional government.

However, you do not seem to see that the "aristocratic" intrusions against which the founders reacted in the American Revolution essentially combined government with the interests of great wealth. (Consider, e.g., the Boston Tea Party, where the tax on tea was intended to benefit the British East India Company as well as helping to pay for British arms in North America.) Part of the point of limited government, then, was to attempt to prevent such combinations. As you say, "After all: Law made wealth is much easier to acquire than work made wealth."

Our limiting of the powers of government in the early republic did not suffice to prevent government intrusion to favor particular economic interests, though early on this was often a matter of the state governments. Consider, e.g., the construction of the Eire Canal which was a state financed and state operated enterprise (completed about 1828) or the history of the Pennsylvania Railroad (once the largest corporation in the country) which arose out of the privatization of Pennsylvania's system of "public works" --canals and short-line railroads. At first the states themselves also attempted to regulate the excesses of their corporate creations, but this was often prevented by the federal courts which insisted on federal power over interstate commerce. In consequence one of the first first items of federal economic regulation was the Interstate Commerce act, past in Congress in the 1880's.

The role of "intrusive government," may .e.g., consist in something so simple as laxity in the enforcement of the anti-trust laws; and politicians may, in fact, aggrandize themselves, and the perceived need of government, by first allowing inordinate concentrations of wealth --as a source of their own political support.

So, I see a bit of contemporary myth-making in your "right vs. left" account of politics and morality. One source of polarization in the period of globalization of recent decades was that the "liberal-left" (e.g., Clinton, Blair, Obama) sponsored globalization politically, thus threatening the traditional corporate support for more conservative parties. (Substitute here "economic elites" for "aristocrats.") This resulted in a kind of bidding war, involved in the terms of trade expansion, for political support from effected economic and political interests. Regulation of the terms of international trade had been effectively taken out of the hands of Congress and made into an area of Executive power. So, was this not "big government" tending to the interests of "big money" (economic elites)?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_%C3%89poque

The Belle Époque It is conventionally dated from the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914. For the elite and the economy in general it was a great period and with a rise in great new forms of entertainment (moulin rouge, haute couture, peak luxury for the selected few) of the elite of the global economy (period of climax of the western imperialism)

The notion of citizen of the world for the upper rich class began to appear:

''Indeed, for many Europeans in the Belle Époque period, transnational, class-based affiliations were as important as national identities, particularly among aristocrats. An upper-class gentleman could travel through much of Western Europe without a passport and even reside abroad with minimal bureaucratic regulation.''

''It was not entirely the reality of life in Paris or in France, however.[citation needed] France had a large economic underclass who never experienced much of the Belle Époque's wonders and entertainments.''

''the international workers' movement also reorganized itself and reinforced pan-European, class-based identities among the classes whose labor supported the Belle Époque. The most notable transnational socialist organization was the Second International. Anarchists of different affiliations were active during the period leading up to World War I.''

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

One other small objection:

You wrote:

For the liberal, wealth = freedom.

---End quotation

However, it strikes me as odd to view it as a distinctively "liberal" view that wealth or money = power. Isn't this more distinctive of monied interests and the owners or managers of corporations? It is true, of course, that some seek money for the sake of power and others seek power for the sake of money.

There are many forms of power, and these include, beyond wealth, also the power of institutional position (private or public). These are people who can pass down orders or institutional incentives and expect things to go their way.

There is also "the power of persuasion."

In a democratic society, we do not want the power of wealth and institutional positions to outweigh the power of persuasion in public debate. This implies limits on the power of government (as. e.g., in the Bill of Rights) and on the power of other large-scale institutions.

H.G. Callaway

Dr. Callaway,

Concerning your statement:

" However, you do not seem to see that the "aristocratic" intrusions against which the founders reacted in the American Revolution essentially combined government with the interests of great wealth. (Consider, e.g., the Boston Tea Party, where the tax on tea was intended to benefit the British East India Company as well as helping to pay for British arms in North America.) Part of the point of limited government, then, was to attempt to prevent such combinations..."

I agree, and that was my point when I wrote that for conservatives, the best way to limit the power of corporations is the limit the power of the state. Not ( as liberals are wont to do) to attack the wealth-generating mechanisms themselves, the property of private wealth and enterprise.

Plus...

We have to keep in mind that as governments pass through their transitional period from aristocracies to democracies or back again the process is virtually always led by well placed leaders with connections (and some wealth) or well placed leaders in close contact with the military. Robespierre and Danton were not French peasants during the revolution and Gandhi was a lawyer. And Lenin had his sailors and Mao his army. So we keep in mind Hume's observation from his History of England:

…of all the evils incident in society, the insurrection of the populace, when not raised and supported by persons of higher quality, are the least to be dreaded.

I think you are I are not coming at this problem from the same angle. I approach the issue as the unfolding of human moral action... guided by two distinct principles that are colloquially referred to as "left" and "right."

Wealth and the wealthy come in both persuasions. In fact, I'm sure you'll recall the phrase from the 1970s ... the "limousine liberals." Both left and right try to use wealth to accomplish their aims.

Conservatives "appear" to favor the wealthy only in that they do not favor direct governmental interference in most businesses.

But both left and right will subordinate business to achieve their moral ends.

The modern view of expanding wealth as the sin qua non of all existence is fundamentally a post-Renaissance Age-of Reason libertarian ideal made possible by the scientific and technological revolutions of modern era.

I'm afraid I am occupying too much of your time, and without a better platform to explain my outlook, my correspondence may become ponderous. Forgive me.

I'll end by noting (as the Supreme Court did) that corporations represent the individuals in society also. As do churches, The Elks Club, and other associations. (recall John C. Calhouns "Concurrent-Majority'' idea) and that it is through these voluntary combinations that people are employed, and indirectly fed, clothed, and housed.

--So the fact that a national government looks to improve it's productive institutions is not necessarily proof that they are in the pockets of business.

Donald Trump's recent embargoes are making businessmen all over the political spectrum pull their hair out.

We cannot assume by this that Trump is the only independent and truly patriotic politician not in the pockets of the Elites!!

Most importantly, your statement:

"I see a bit of contemporary myth-making in your "right vs. left" account of politics and morality."

I can understand your reticence and skepticism about this. It is a completely new idea in moral theory. My contention is that left/right (and when both are weakest "libertarian") are moral expressions that allow us to explain and understand human economic and political development.

Hashing out the details one historical incident at a time is interesting but not always efficient.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

If you haven't already seen the following, brief thesis, on "Hamiltonian America,"

please have a look.

Thesis Hamiltonian America

Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard & readers,

If you are interested in the trans-Atlantic aspects of the present question, concerning reform in reaction to the Gilded Age, there is a great background volume that may interest you.

I am thinking of John Taliaferro's biography of American diplomat John Hay.

There is a review of the volume available on-line from the Washington Post --and several others as well.

I quote from the review, by Heather Cox Richardson:

Hay’s formal employment ended in 1881. For the next 17 years, he churned out books: first “The Bread-Winners,” a pot-boiling 1883 novel; then “Abraham Lincoln: A History,” a 10-volume, ­1.5-million-word biography co-written with Nicolay. He traveled, dined, chatted, flirted. In the 1896 election, Hay poured money into the campaign of Republican William McKinley. Flush with victory, McKinley named Hay ambassador to England. There, his drawing-room skills made him popular with British leaders. When McKinley needed a new secretary of state to promote American business interests overseas, he turned to the well-connected Hay. After McKinley died, Hay stayed on and adopted Theodore Roosevelt’s aggressive foreign policies, overseeing the nation’s debut on the world stage.

---End quotation

See:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/all-the-great-prizes-the-life-of-john-hay-from-lincoln-to-roosevelt-by-john-taliaferro/2013/07/05/7f5ebd78-bbf1-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7ae552691263

Hay was a highly honored figure of his times, and started his career as a personal secretary to President Abraham Lincoln, became quite wealthy --and ending up as Secretary of State under Teddy Roosevelt. He traveled frequently to Europe often traveling with friends such as Henry Adams and many others of the "great and good."

The book is very well written--a "page turner" as they say. It definitely holds the reader's interest. Hay was also a close friend of Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge. Somewhat like novelist Henry James (brother of the philosopher William) Hay knew and interacted with just about everyone in GB.

See:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/All-the-Great-Prizes/John-Taliaferro/9781416597346

The book provides an overview of those times, centered on the trans-Atlantic and U.S. developments. I found it very useful and informative.

Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

The Belle Époque It is conventionally dated from the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914. For the elite and the economy in general it was a great period and with a rise in great new forms of entertainment (moulin rouge, haute couture, peak luxury for the selected few) of the elite of the global economy (period of climax of the western imperialism)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Readers of the present thread may find the following question of interest:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Those_who_cannot_learn_from_history_are_doomed_to_repeat_it_True_or_false

Please have a look. Answers and comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

Stephen Martin Fritz

Yes.

IMHO

This question seems directed to the influence of a trend in history of the US in the late 19th century. But the basis of the trend starts not at the Civil War but at the acceptance of the 1987 Constitution. The key concept that echos today is, IMHO, that the states are the prime organizational structure. That is, the States determine the government's relation with the people and NOT the Federal government. Thus, the Bill of Rights was NOT approved by the Framers of the Constitution. Another little known or recognized action soon after the Constitution was adopted requires states in the North to return slaves to the South. This is interference in North States' relation with its people. This set the stage for the "underground railroad" and in a few decades caused the Civil War. But The US learned the wrong lesson. Indeed, the power of states was eroded when the appointment of Senators was changed from state governments to indivual voters. The interference has expanded starting with the Teddy Roosevelt period and has continued to FDR, JFK, LBJ. Today the Federal interference has expanded so much so that it is viewed as morally good. The result has been a slowing of growth over decades , a worsening of income inequality, worsening of opportunity, increased regulation, and all the indicators of Tainter"s "The collapse of complex societies" now present. The Constitution was a giant leap in the organization structure of a nation. It was forgotten within 5 years. Now humanity will probable be given another chance after the collapse of the current structure.

Why is the states concept better. "FREEDOM" means each state competes with other states. Nature then rules about the best system by killing the offenders of nature. Freedom means natural selection and conformance to natural law. Humanistic intrusion means regulation and the question of survival is kicked up to the survival of the nation.

Hodge

John Hodge

I believe the two basic forms of government (democracy/dictatorship) are biological expressions. Humans organize themselves in one or the other (or a combination of both) patterns in response to environmental conditions.

It is common to imagine that a dictatorial or aristocratic form of government emerges as some strongman forcing his will upon others -- leading to the mistaken fantasy that if only the majority simply knew better or were better educated or better organized everyone would just band together and enjoy democratic government.

A better way to grasp democracy is to understand it as "commercial-democracy" as it is around "expanded production and wide-spread trade" (that disperses social authority) that makes people tolerant and near equals between themselves, that gives rise to some form of democracy.

Democracy begins as a relationship between the people of a society long before it makes itself known in their form of governance.

It is not a coincidence that democracies all form around trading ports (i.e. Athens, Rome, the Italian Maritime Republics, England, the USA)

Your observation that the USA began as a confederation of compartmentalized political units (the states) and after the Civil War was transformed into one large political entity (The modern USA) is on target.

We will likely continue to consolidate social authority along these lines.

I've sent you a copy of the book which outlines THE THEORY OF DUAL MORALITY. It suggests that two foundational moral patterns exist within all of us, and the larger institutions of government form as our collective expressions of these.

One moral patter focuses on a horizontal structure of equality... the other on a more vertical structure of merit. These correspond to the basic environmental conditions we all face, either there is enough for all or their is not.

As we (and all western civilization) has progressed toward a condition of safety and opulence we are biologically pressured to see right and wrong in the horizontal/equal/egalitarian way. We are all one big family of man with the central authority representing us all, and distributing goods and resources to everyone.

I would not go so far as to say this is a dire condition. There is NO HISTORIC PRECEDENT for this level of wealth and security dispersed through so much of society. So who knows where we might end up??

One familiar pattern is the expansion of the franchise. As each level of society proves itself productive, it elbows its way into group-leadership. So culture begins as a close-knit collection of leaders/aristocrats, expands to include all men, then all women, then adolescents... and even children.

There is talk of giving the vote to prisoners and kids as young as 12. And we have to accept that dogs and cats would be given the vote if it were possible to teach them to pull the lever.

But we mustn't fret about this -- as it hardly matters.

Voting is merely the veneer (an icing on the cake) of democracy. Commercial democracy depends on widespread production and trade.

It is no coincidence that we view the average man-in-the-street as unqualified to participate in the selection of the manager of the local Wal-mart, but we let him select the President of the United States!

Trump or Hillary matter far less than the dynamic of millions of producers and traders dispersed at every level of society. But our eyes focus on them and we dream them so important. We can't help it.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge & readers,

I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at in the passage below. What seems to the point is to say that under the constitution of 1789, the U.S. was neither a full union of the states --i.e., not a fusion of the states--but also not merely a confederations of the states. The Constitution speaks, in the preamble, for "We the people." It is put forward as an act of the people. It was a matter of shared responsibility of the state and federal governments. It was not the state governments which approved the constitution but instead special-purpose conventions of the people in each state. The federal government always had a direct role in government of the entire country, and the powers of government were divided between the state and federal governments. That is part of the overall division of powers.

As I recall, the Bill of Right was approved by the first Congress, and James Madison was, in fact the chief author. These first ten amendments to the constitution then had to be approved by the states --we still use this procedure for amending the constitution. Many of the founders were in fact in Congress at the time; and in any case, the Bill of Rights had been promised by the founders to help bring along those more skeptical of the expanded powers of the new federal government.

You may find the following article of interest regarding my points here:

Article Review of Alison LaCroix, Ideological Origins of American Federalism

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

This question seems directed to the influence of a trend in history of the US in the late 19th century. But the basis of the trend starts not at the Civil War but at the acceptance of the 1987 Constitution. The key concept that echos today is, IMHO, that the states are the prime organizational structure. That is, the States determine the government's relation with the people and NOT the Federal government. Thus, the Bill of Rights was NOT approved by the Framers of the Constitution.

H.G. Callaway

Boy, did I get the year wrong. Apologies for the sloppiness.

I've been thinking of what is going wrong with the US and why. Democracies/republics change to the point where all that Socrates fears is coming to pass. Why? Today I think we are dominated by the ignorant or childishness viewpoints. The "atlas Shrugged" is coming to pass.

The challenge is to embrace the changes that are coming and to grow without war. Well, the US started with the idea of states rights and the federal government was to serve the states. But how to prevent the federal from taking the bit in their teeth. It worked until the election of the Senate changed.

The League of nations failed, the UN is failing as is the EU. The USSR was another attempt at organizing a large multicultural nation. All these are failures. So, what can work? I've been thinking of what a new world order Constitution would look like. There have been other attempts which seem to expand on the regulation and how to impose the UN on people. All these have been shown to be failures in organization structure.

Stephen Martin Fritz

Thanks.

My dual approach to survival is female(nurturing) vs male (Protection/providing).

The idea of our congress came from the Iroquois (so I'm told). Their "congress" was one house dominated by men and the other by women. Each had their own tasks. Interestingly, The women declared war.

See my paper on the https://www.researchgate.net/project/Life-society-and-morality

I await you book. Thanks.

John Hodge I read your paper and am impressed.

But I think we diverge a bit here. I think what allows democratic institutions to survive and thrive is cultural complexity. The more complex the culture the harder it is to corral its people, commandeer its resources, and control its production under narrow governmental (or industry) supervision.

Places that begin down a democratic path, but have over-concentrated their wealth and production around a few easily controlled industries (i.e. Venezuela, Iraq and Saudi Arabia with oil) either fail to develop into democracies or are on the verge of falling back to dictatorial rule.

Democracy is really COMMERCIAL DEMOCRACY ... and it depends on widespread production and trade to smear-out social authority over many people.

Non-democratic cultures are more simple societies where most of the people do pretty much a small variety of things all the time. Social authority is easy to commandeer in these situations.

I do hope you read the book and go on to the full 1100 page text. That is where the cycle of government is laid out in full.... including the warning that

SHOULD A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT EVERY REALLY FORM - WE'RE PROBABLY IN FOR REAL TROUBLE!

We would be setting ourselves up for a deeper and darker dark-age than experienced by the west from 500 AD- 1100 AD.

Recall, a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT is similar to what Rome accomplished by 50AD.

They controlled everything -- and her natural borders ran to the Arctic in the north, deserts to the east and south, and the Atlantic Ocean to the west.

There was nowhere to hide ... no way of escaping!

Rome made the idea of ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT a near reality.

What was the result??

Decline and collapse. There was nowhere to hide from the omnipresent State, and government controlled all trade and taxed and regulated everyone as much as it pleased.

Getting in bed with the ROMAN GOVERNMENT became the be-all and end-all of social survival.

Also recall, that the situation got so bad that by the end of the western Roman Empire PEOPLE WERE SELLING THEMSELVES INTO SLAVERY to avoid the tax man and government punishments ...

... and, that European hereditary titles began as effort of the Roman Government to force never ending subservience and military and financial obligations onto local leaders multi-generationally. A title of obligation to the leader was hereditary and could not be shirked.

So your idea that some sort of federalism (competition between political entities) is vital is fully endorsed by me.

Western democracies thrive because industries (computers, the internet, robotics) grow faster than these industries can be regulated and corralled by either government regulators or industry cabals.

And, as long as there is growing competition between them, it makes the establishment of "government granted monopolies" over any industry (i.e. MA BELL telephones prior to 1976) nearly impossible.

Competition between nation-States is vital.

If the USA regulates some industry too closely, the Chinese or the Germans will swoop in and pick up "market-share" forcing the American taxers and regulators to back-off.

Democracy is merely dispersed social authority made REAL by production and trade.

Consequently, PRODUCTION AND TRADE IS THE MATERIAL CREATION OF FREEDOM.

Stephen Martin Fritz

Got your abridged version and m reading it.

I think you have the issue correct. A one world government eventually decays into collapse because it tries to regulate the affairs of the individuals as the US is now doing. This leads to collapse as Tainter outlines.As human societies have grown from family groups to tribes to chiefdom to state organizations, we now need to grow to a nation/world government. But the concepts os the state structure don't work. What will work? is the question. Humanity has several failures, to learn from. But we are not learning.

It is difficult to say what were the reforms of the era. the precedent events were important.

-The war with Mexico and the invasion of Mexico, with the support of the Democrats and the support of the people of the South (confederates).

-The secesion war between the South and the North (Confederated and Federals), first of them were for slavery and expansion to the South, and the others of them were for abolition of slavery, for industrialization (it was industrial revolution) at big scale, and expansion to the west and international (some kind of early globalization with a big dosis of greed, to my view).

-The post war reformation, the abolition of slavery, the isolation of the south (although the reformation wanted a integration of everybody after the war), the command of the federalist (Republicans) excited because of the posiblity of the realization of their dream of expansion and industrialization at high level (with a high degree of greed) applying at great scale the principles of industrialization, without consideration to humanity and human dignity. It was the beginnign of the globalization thinking, same of this is the problem nowadays. Big problem.

As a result of this way of thinking of the federalist, wanting to be rich as a way of life, inequalities and social injustice grew, also some economical problems due probably to the cancerigenous growth without proper control, (there was the Great Depression of 1873, two major depressions at the national level along with two banking panics (the panic of 1873 and the panic of 1893)), and stagnations.

But this was the foundation of modern society in USA and the rest of the world also. And it still endures and it constitutes a big problem.

This was the thinking of Mark Twain.

“It is a time when one’s spirit is subdued and sad, one knows not why; when the past seems a storm-swept desolation, life a vanity and a burden, and the future but a way to death. It is a time when one is filled with vague longings; when one dreams of flight to peaceful islands in the remote solitudes of the sea, or folds his hands and says, What is the use of struggling, and toiling and worrying any more? let us give it all up.”

― Mark Twain, The Gilded Age

Dear All,

''On such issues as the levying of tariffs on foreign imports, which the early historians portrayed as simply a tool for helping big business, the new writers pointed out that this protection had not especially benefited the railroads or the oil industry, two of the supposed villains of the age. Supporters of high tariffs, who included workers in many industries, had defended them as a means of safeguarding American jobs, of helping producers of certain raw materials, and of shielding small business from foreign competition. Politically, the policy had been central to the Republican coalition, since it promised to promote economic growth among various likely GOP voters.

...

Congress had remained more powerful than the Presidency during the period, and as often as not, one or both houses had not been of the President’s party; this explained the partisan deadlocks and compromises of the time. The national political scene had been one long struggle to build a new majority, a battle the Republicans finally won in 1894 and 1896. The highest rate of voter participation in American history occurred in the 188Os and 189Os, and the closeness of most elections and the sense of a major struggle for power reflected people’s intense interest in politics. If voting, public discussion of issues, and legislative enactments constitute democracy, the Gilded Age was one of the most democratic periods in American history.

...

Many of the public questions we grapple with today resemble those of the Gilded Age—the place of minorities in society; the problems of a wave of foreign immigration; women’s rights; government’s role in shaping social development. Questions of monetary policy and tariff protection are also very much alive.''

https://www.americanheritage.com/gilded-age

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard & readers,

Useful quotations, I'd say.

It is of some importance, to distinguish, let us say, the early Gilded Age, from the later Gilded Age. It might be more accurate to think of the later Gilded Age as "one of the most democratic periods in American history." Yet the black (Republican) vote in the South was continually suppressed after the end of Reconstruction --with the election of President Hayes.

It is not clear to me that the early Gilded Age, say, 1870-1885 was quite as "democratic" as the later period--in terms of voter interest. Notice, too, that on many accounts, the Progressive Era starts about 1890--arising, in part from the populist movement.

In any case, the chief reforms started in the 1880's.

The present question chiefly concerns what the chief reforms of the period were--which tells us, presumably, how the problems of the Gilded Age came to be understood.

It may help to keep in mind that high tariffs were the rule. President McKinley rode into power in the presidential election of 1896, defeating the Democrat-Populist candidate, partly on the basis of his reputation as a defender of high, protective tariffs.

H.G. Callaway

Interesting

Don´t look for clues for a new gilged age in USA (good for some). This is not possible without hurting the world in a quite irreversible way.

One time is enough. The world is still recuperating of the injuries of the cancerigenous capitalism, some people did not survive.

Another way of life is needed. No more american dream of becoming obscenely rich. Some other intelligent way of life can be developed.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Mendez-Esteban & readers,

The focus of the present question is, of course, on how the U.S. escaped the Gilded Age --a century and more back.

Arguably, it is political and economic excesses of globalization which have threatened a new Gilded Age.

Right?

H.G. Callaway

I may be misreading the arguments but I think it is disingenuous to compare the current economic situation in America with a new "American" gilded age.

The poor in the USA live very well compared to poor people in most other parts of the world and even better than many of the "rich" of all human history.

But in the most impoverished nation on earth, those merchants or political leaders who find ways to interact with the world trading economy first (before most others of their countrymen) might be far far better off than the poor in their country.

There may be something akin to a gilded age in the backwaters of China or SubSaharan Africa, but for most of the developed west, I don't think the analogy of a modern gilded age holds up.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

You don't see an analogy between the current situation and the Gilded Age of the later 19th century? That is fine by me.

But might this be because you don't know enough about the American Gilded Age and the reforms it inspired? So you want to learn more about it?

Or, do you perhaps mean to inform us, for sure, that you do know quite enough about the Gilded Age, the reforms which followed and also about the contemporary world situation in general ? So you have no need of going over the reforms of the Progressive era? That's o.k., too.

But, if, so then I am unsure why you are following and contributing to the present thread. Our question, again is,

What were the chief reforms in the U.S. Gilded Age and the Progressive Era?

Its a historical question. No doubt some do see a "distant mirror," but if you don't then you might still want to look into the historical question for its own sake.

Perhaps, on the other hand, the comparison of the present to the Gilded Age is completely new and surprising to you?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

The poor in the USA live very well compared to poor people in most other parts of the world and even better than many of the "rich" of all human history.

H.G. Callaway I assume your comment:

"Perhaps, on the other hand, the comparison of the present to the Gilded Age is completely new and surprising to you? " Was directed at me??

I do not find this new at all. In fact, this and similar statements have been made since the dawn of every democracy. It may in fact be the very oldest of views.

Here I quote the writer Rose Lane from her book Give Me Liberty written in 1936. She tells us of how she's heard these same sorts of things from as far back as she can remember.

And I trust, 100 years from now, you and I will still be hearing some variation on these themes - no matter what happens -- if we were to hang around that long!

The more interesting question for me (and one you may be in a good position to answer Dr. Callaway) is why these same sorts of positions (i.e. the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer) recur again and again and again no matter how rich we all get (including the poorest among us)

Here is Rose Lane in 1936:

We look too much at charts and statistics. We would learn more by looking at America.

I read again, for instance, that less than ten percent of our population own more than ninety percent of our wealth. This alarmed me in 1893.

I read also that a hundred years ago 80 percent of our population owned property, and that today the percentage is 23. Such an expropriation, if it has occurred, is alarming. But it seems to me even more alarming that many American minds accept this statement as true upon no better proof than that they have read it … and from it conclude that the proper thing to do is to take ownership away from individuals and have property administered by the State…

When I look at America, I do not see that more than three out of four are destitute of property. What I see is that forms of property have changed…

Fewer men own farms, because better transportation and refrigerator cars have made it possible to deliver good food to large populations … Fewer men own houses, because many choose to rent apartments…

Yet how many men, a hundred years ago, owned endowment insurance policies? or shared a building-and-loan association? or a few shares of Great Biscuit Company stock? or an automobile, a radio, an electric refrigerator, or a typewriter? The fact is that in statistics I myself appear as one of the dispossessed…

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

Yes, my prior note was explicitly addresses to you and the other readers of this thread.

I believe that the contemporary concern with growing inequalities around the world is considerably broader than you seem to think. Within any given country, this concern is properly focused on the growing inequalities of that country, of course. That is partly because, comparison of domestic poverty to worse poverty abroad does little to alleviate resulting domestic power imbalances arising from economic inequality.

I would recommend the following recent book: Winner Take All Politics:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Winner-Take-All-Politics/Jacob-S-Hacker/9781416588702

To alleviate your apparent fears, I am not aware that anyone involved in the present discussion advocates taking "ownership away from individuals" and having "property administered by the State…"

Generally, I think it best to avoid political advocacy regarding questions in history and political science. People of differing political convictions may still draw their own conclusions.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote, quoting?---

I read also that a hundred years ago 80 percent of our population owned property, and that today the percentage is 23. Such an expropriation, if it has occurred, is alarming. But it seems to me even more alarming that many American minds accept this statement as true upon no better proof than that they have read it … and from it conclude that the proper thing to do is to take ownership away from individuals and have property administered by the State…

Dear Callaway,

If escaping of greed and the obsesion to be rich is the matter, then it is welcome. If only some cultivation, ethical cultivation or religious one should have been given in the recent years to many people now commanding. Then the escape from that black hole could be much more easy.

But in contrary this kind of cultivation is being and have been rejected as if a stupidity it were.

Can anyone understand that?

Gilged age is quite a good example to not follow. But in order to not follow that, you must have been, at least informed, about other posibilities, that have been rejected, "because unuseful" to the view of the "brains" of nowadays world.

Dear Stephen,

''The more interesting question for me (and one you may be in a good position to answer Dr. Callaway) is why these same sorts of positions (i.e. the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer) recur again and again and again no matter how rich we all get (including the poorest among us)''

Maybe for the simple reason that historically there are periods were rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. We were lucky enough to have been yound in a post war period were it was not the case but since the last 4 decades it has become the case again and so we are now questioning it.

I am not an historian and so for me it is interesting to inquire into the guilded age. Nowadays, we often are told that we are entering a new guilded age. Maybe. I don't know since I don't have much of a clue what the guilded age was about and it is what I hope to get with my participation in this thread.

Regards,

- Louis

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Brassard & readers,

Thanks for your comment in reply to Fritz.

I came across the following, brief history of the Gilded Age, which may prove helpful.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/36.asp

Please have a look. Comments from readers invited.

H.G. Callaway

I think part of the issue with this discussion is that I think it is misleading to view the period of 1860-1910 or thereabouts as "THE GILDED AGE."

The name itself is emotionalist prejorative, journalistic jargon that (I think) was taken from the title of the comedian Mark Twain's book.

It is like asking: "WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE BATTLE AGAINST THE ONE PERCENTERS?"

Or maybe "What did the BIRTHERS of the 2010s teach us about the Presidency?.

The economic period of 1860 -1919 was one of tremendous economic expansion for all. That period was marked by vast immigration into the United States by poor people, just as poor people are pouring into our nation now.

And it was in that era that America became the richest and strongest nation of earth.

It is not because we were or are "hard on the poor. " It is because the poor have the greatest chance to excel and do well here both then and now.

The post civil war era saw similar economic expansion for all of the type we see occurring before our very eyes today. It was just more obviously displayed by the people at the top -- with big houses, and big projects funded by private investors.

Think Andrew Carnegie/Bill Gates or John D. Rockefeller/Jeff Bezos

So, if we want to talk about the economic period and the economic activity of the post-civil war era, that is one topic...

But if we want to talk about legislation passed to address the excess of THE GILDED AGE we are talking about another. We pass from economics to politics.

The legislators that would buy into the GILDED AGE imagery and language are like the modern legislators who buy into the ONE PERCENTERS language.

The begin from a moral position that the economic opportunities of the nation favor one group far more than another and that those near the top need to be reigned-in, controlled or have their wealth taken or redistributed to those near the bottom.

For example, the sixteenth amendment to the constitution that made the modern Federal Income Tax possible came out of that era. I read somewhere that the floor debates at the time had considered also including a 2% upper limit on the tax, but it was laughed down as its promoters guaranteed the the tax could never possibly reach as high as 2% of a person's income!!

The tax has funded everything from pervasive nation-wide industrial regulation to unceasing and never ending foreign wars, as well as assorted wealth redistribution schemes (child tax credits, food stamps, farm aid, etc.)

If you reject the idea of a GILDED AGE was anything more than a journalistic invention by a comedian (which I do) than the new Gilded Age takes on a different light.

I believe in the need for wealth redistribution.

And I do believe with increasing productivity and robotics that wealth redistribution will become the primary activity of GOOD GOVERNMENT.

But I think this government action is spurred by an inherent internal moral sentiment that lead us to feel "WHEN THERE IS ENOUGH FOR ALL, ALL SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH."

The journalism of the Gilded Age was used to convince us that we were indeed in one of those periods.... that there was "enough for all." and that it just wasn't distributed properly throughout our group.

But to best understand the redistributionist sentiment, we need to look first to human moral understanding (Dual Morality) and then only secondly to the political enthusiasms and name calling of any one era that pushes our actions.

So, for me, the very fact that one of the greatest periods in human history, where the poor were helped more than at any time ever seen before (by private activities long before public programs) --- that this period could be looked back upon with derision and still be called "A GILDED AGE" throws misdirected shade on the very industrial developments that made America a Mecca for poor people from around the world, and allowed the government to expand to unprecedented levels funded by that same industrial development ....

But I may have strayed off target - forgive me.

The real lesson of that time, even if we want to call it A GILDED AGE was that production and trade was expanding so quickly that the gold that was appearing on the outside of the rich was also finding its way to the inside pockets of the poor as never before in history.

And thanks to that era, we all all gilded now ... and the people at the southern border want in on the action!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

I think we will do well to consult some sources, and in particular, readers may want to consider the article dedicated to the "Gilded Age," in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I quote from the opening:

Gilded Age, period of gross materialism and blatant political corruption in U.S. history during the 1870s that gave rise to important novels of social and political criticism. The period takes its name from the earliest of these, The Gilded Age (1873), written by Mark Twain in collaboration with Charles Dudley Warner. The novel gives a vivid and accurate description of Washington, D.C., and is peopled with caricatures of many leading figures of the day, including greedy industrialists and corrupt politicians.

---End quotation

See:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Gilded-Age

While the novel by Mark Twain and Charles Warner gave its name to the period, they were not the only critics. Also worth mention here is the American historian Henry Adams, who wrote a novel, titled Democracy (1880) , covering much of the same material and perspective. Adam's novel was very popular, widely read and inspired a great deal of speculation, since he published it anonymously.

See, e.g.,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/books/review/henry-adams-democracy-.html

Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

lest we get too carried away, we should consider some other characteristics. The extreme growth of the US, the high mortality if immigrants who still come, the poor went west where a high mortality rate also existed, etc.

One of the problems, IMHO, of today's politics is that each issue is treated all by itself. There seems to no attempt to relate all the little issues to the overall. Thus, campaigns focus on identifying which groups of small issues attract the most (ignorant) voters. So, we see campaigns oriented to giving money to those groups. Except for TRUMP, who can can campaign on the betterment of the US as a whole.

So, the characteristics of the Gilded era have all been replaced by the original first sin of the US political process - federal interference into state relations with individuals such as the Bill of Rights and the edit to return slaves. The edict caused the Civil War. Battles with the Bill of Rights are still being fought but will probably result in collapse of our complex society.

C. Lewis Kausel The United States is the only nation in the western hemisphere that had to go through a civil war to banish slavery. The reason seems rather clear.

In other nations the industrializing practices that made slavery inefficient grew up around and among the slave holding areas. So the people against slavery were intermingled with the population that still supported it. As soon as the population that wanted to hold onto the practice was reduced to a minority, their views could be disregarded or legislated into oblivion.

Much like the views of the people who still wish to smoke tobacco in bars, barber shops and restaurants like we all did 30 years ago. These people don't really matter. Even if it is their bar or their restaurant, they are not allowed under penalty of law to practice the behavior.

Once American smokers were reduced to a significant minority, their preferences could be effectively ignored.

In the United States of the nineteenth century, cotton production funneled the slave holding society into a small part of the nation. Within that area the slave holders could not be out-voted or made to feel like a minority.

In that part of the country people who believed in slavery dominated the newspapers, schools, and political offices.

In the north, those who were against it began to dominate public discourse.

The very form of social structure that must exist to support slavery (hierarchical, tradition based) is opposed to the horizontal and democratic structure that eventually eliminates it. In effect, the North and South began to understand morality in two distinct ways. more Vertical or more horizontal.

In the south the traditional concepts of better and worse sorts of people was supported - this is the type of social system that dominates poor semi-feudalistic societies... with lords, ladies, and aristocracies.

In the north, a more unified equality was promoted. The sort or moral outlook that dominates all democracies. Where we are all on a first name basis and where everyone can treats everyone else with over-familiarity or disinterest.

The general "leftward" drift in social outlook that comes to eliminate aristocracies and slavery continues into the 21st century and is now showing up in extreme forms with Antifa and other measures to impose State control over industries and cultural institutions (school systems, medical care, national day care centers, universal basic incomes, national retirement programs etc).

It is the natural result of an outlook that replaces the older idea of rugged individualism (your bills are not my bills) is being replaced by the view that anybody's problem is everybody's problem.

Politics is just the stage where out moral battles are resolved. As long as these left or rightward moral drifts occur rather uniformly throughout a nation, political battles are fought at the ballot box or on every street corner. If these moral outlooks become separated in distinct parts of a nation, civil war can result.

Dear @Martin Fritz

No sir, it was not exactly like this, there was no moral outlook to my view, simply profit. USA didn´t go to a civil war to banish slavery.

The proof that it was only a matter of profit and not moral at all, is the cancerigenous, and without control, growth of globalist capitalism, without any moral and a lot of greed (wich was very criticized for example by Mark Twain), made after the war by the people of the North, wanting to be rich as a way of life, at any price, as it happened.

Slavery was a problem of discussion because people of the South wanted slaves for working, as a tradition, and people of the North wanted machines for working and not slaves because machines were cheaper and you don´t have to feed them, following the principles of industrial revolution. People of the North were obsessed with industrial revolution and they thought that slavery was simply old fashioned and not rentable, they was not very worried about human rights of black people. Also taking political advantage of that before public opinion, the people of the North removed a moral problem that could annoy someone.

Dear Carlos Méndez-Esteban

There is much in what you say. But I think you (and most writers of the period) over-simplify the situation. To say that GREED dominated the culture because it was the first time a small handful of individuals were able to make it very rich is no more true for that time than for ours. Or any decade in between.

Most people, much of the their live, are productively involved in material gain. They have jobs to make money. Does this mean all of humanity is consumed with greed?

I'd say they are consumed with it at the level they have always been in every nation and at every time in history.

What has been different since the industrial age is that material production has exploded. We all have become fantastically better off. The poor in America drive cars, talk on cell phones, and wear clothes made from around the world.

The rich of the Gilded Age were millionaires, today they are billionaires, tomorrow they may be trillionaires.

But our moral impulses remain. In fact, private citizens doing good and giving to charity is expanding all the time.

Concerning slavery: There was an on-going abolition movement in the north that perpetually agitated the southern slaveholders. And the fact that all northern states had made slavery illegal tells us something about how their citizens felt about the issue. The fact that runaway slaves were sheltered and not returned to the south tells us something also.

But my point is deeper than this. My interest is:

HOW CAN WE FEEL SLAVERY IS RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE

and also:

HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN FEEL SLAVERY IS WRONG?

To be able to treat others as slaves ... or to feel slavery is a great moral wrong ... are two distinct moral outlooks that need explaining. And that explanation is found in The Theory of Dual Morality.

Slavery is as "normal" as "equality." They are both possible as acceptable human moral expressions. THAT IS CERTAINLY A LESSON THAT HISTORY TEACHES US!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz, Mendez-Esteban & readers,

It is perhaps worth noting that Aristotle regarded slavery as natural and acceptable --in the ancient Greek style of it. The idea was that people who could not govern themselves, i.e. could not (or did not?) attain to the cultivation of the moral and intellectual virtues (like minor children) must be governed and controlled by others. Slavery was regarded as an aspect of the economics of the household.

The Northern abolitionists argued on the basis of the capability of all human beings for self-improvement and self-cultivation. There was a good measure of New England puritanism in the movement. Recall that Massachusetts abolished slavery in the early republic by a court order, based on the text of the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal ..." (This is also how slavery was kept out of England.) See, also., my Introduction to R.W. Emerson's 1860 book, The Conduct of Life:

Book Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Conduct of Life, A Philosophical Reading.

Lincoln had argued that the nation "could not long exist half-slave and half-free." "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This was before he was nominated for President. He aimed, first of all, to preserve the Union. But there can be little doubt of how he foresaw the basis of unity and a "new birth of freedom."

The economic excesses of the Gilded Age tell us little about the Northern motives in the Civil War. Any extensive war tends to demoralize people on a large scale. Often enough, the wealth of the Gilded Age grew up from corruption involved in the supply and provisions to the Union forces. The Radical Reconstruction Republicans (who passed the 13th-15th Amendments) retained power in Congress in the early years following the Civil War, through the Grant administration, but were ultimately defeated within the Republican party --and power in the South was handed back to the (white) ex-Confederates.

H.G. Callaway

Exactly Callaway, this is quite interesting. The main moral reason for a nation to abolish slavery was, of course that the main argument of the Declaration of Independence was precisely that "all men are created equal...", following a Natural law argumentation.

But the fight between federalist and confederates, to my view, was differences on the concepts of how grow up the nation. One of these concepts submitted to hard discussion, to my view, was to embrace the industrial revolution at high scale and abolish slavery because, of course, this was not very productive, regarding the concepts of productivity or continue with a traditional economy and retain slavery, at least in the South.

Lincoln argumented one thing that was a target after the war in the reconstruction period, the unity of both parts , I don´t exactly know if this aim was got after the war. But before the war this unity was not got, I mean there was not a unity regarding how to grow up the nation and work as one.

I totally agree that, in part, the exceses, after the war, of course of greed or other, could come from the demoralization of people after the war, but also it was the realization of the concept of america that the federalist seemed to want, an industrialized america at high scale.

I think that the wrong of the subject consisted on the size, and in the lack of rules about how to do it. People saw the possiblity of becoming rich and this blind them, corruption grew, as a consequence the inequalities grew, and even economic problems grew like some risks of stagnations and banck panics, etc.

A uncontrolled grow, new concepts of industrialization scarcely ruled and just after a war, corruption and also greed gave place to this era. Many people observed how some other became rich, obscenely rich, without moral, without thinking on the rest of people, ant this fact demorealized them even more, this is commented by Twain (the lack of moral and the lack of consideration).

People who became rich in this era are still rich, as Martin Fritz appointed, and much more rich. They took advantage of the situation: corruption after the war, people demoralized , etc... Their attitude was not very correct. But they didn´t care too much, this lack of consideraton demoralized even more to the rest of the people.

Martin Fritz said that the moral impulses remain in rich people, in this regard I include here a famous sentence from Santa Teresa: "obras son amores y no buenas razones". I mean it is not enough with the impulses or reasons.

Concerning slavery, I don´t think that slavery is normal, I agree with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence which is no other that the spirit of the Natural Law.

Slavery is a complicated subject.

We can understand this subject best when we look upon all people who live in hierarchical social circumstances as have "more" or having "fewer" political rights.

In extreme hierarchical conditions the aristocratic class has the most political privileges and things descend from there.

The knights and warriors occupy the class below them and have less rights...

Followed by the merchants who have fewer still

Then the peasants and finally the slaves.

Slaves are still vital members of the polity, they are just the caste with the fewest political privileges.

At the end of the western Roman Empire slaves were the only caste that was UNTAXED. And as wealth declines all governments become ever more oppressive in collecting taxes.

So much so, that in Rome things degenerated to the point where people began selling their children into slavery as a way to protect them!

They often sold themselves into slavery ... SLAVERY BECAME THE BETTER OPTION!

After all, would you rather live as a slave or die being tortured on the rack?

Wealth creation and the industrial revolution ended slavery everywhere in the world. The end of slavery had nothing to do with the moral enlightenment of man.

Slavery is a socio-economic condition that we see through moralistic eyes.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

I take it that what I quote below is a rather cynical view, functioning to attempt to "justify" unlimited and/or unscrupulous "wealth creation. The meaning of "cynicism is that moral value are either not possible or have no effect.

As an historical generalization, the claim that "The end of slavery had nothing to do with the moral enlightenment of man," is a vast and very doubtful claim --imposing a gigantic burden of evidence. Yet, substantially no evidence is presented at all. There do seem to be highly developed materialist, reductive and authoritarian attitudes.

One element simply missing in the related analysis is the social changes which arose in the wake of industrialization--freedom from the traditional agricultural village life and the direct domination of authority, social and religious in all the chief events of life--choice of work, marriage, and social relations.Industrialization and new forms of employment represented the opportunity to separate from the old and form new relations and to select among them; and in this way it gave rise to an ethics of self-realization and self-development --the antipathy of slavery. The North often saw the conflict in the Civil War as a contest between slavery and "free labor."

I see little evidence of any attention or respect for Emerson's argument against slavery. Nor do I see any attention to Lincoln's related moral concerns.

H.G. Callaway

---Fritz wrote---

Wealth creation and the industrial revolution ended slavery everywhere in the world. The end of slavery had nothing to do with the moral enlightenment of man.

Slavery is a socio-economic condition that we see through moralistic eyes.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kausel & readers,

I wonder if you might go a bit further with the line of thought quoted below. I think there can be little doubt that there are differences between the development of globalization and the Gilded Age. Any historical analogy, given that history does not repeat exactly, will always involve elements of dis-analogy. What we want to know is a matter of the salient analogy or similarities. The late Gilded Age in the U.S. was also a time of mass immigration, which added to the already considerable diversity of the country. I think you have to keep in mind that different times have their own sensitivities about who counts as "different," or outside the ordinary. There was a very high percentage of foreign born residents in the American cities in the Gilded Age--as there is now.

It is true that the Gilded Age developed in the wake of the Civil War; but, then, recent globalization developed in the wake of the Cold War. Like all great conflicts based on the use and threat of massive force, the Cold War induced a significant degree of disillusion and demoralization. What is of interest is a matter of significant differences of a sort that would create distinctive reasonable expectations about outcomes. On difference which I've emphasized on a couple of occasions is that the large-scale industrialization of the U.S. in the Gilded Age took place behind a high level of protective tariffs --in contrast to more recent developments in which the U.S. has been deeply involved in the international trading system.

But the Gilded Age, like the present era, was a time of deep political conflicts, divisions and divisiveness. It was a time of an up-swelling of populism which represented a threat to the great moneyed interests. Still, the comparatively inarticulate populism of the 19th century eventually gave rise to quite significant reforms and a shift to Progressivism --both by the Republican and the Democratic party.

The present question is not so much about the need for reform, then or now, as it is about the actual reforms undertaken in the Gilded Age and the following Progressive era--which were many and varied. In general terms, I would say , though, that the connections between great concentrations of wealth, growing inequalities and corruption engendered the conviction that the power of big money had to be placed under greater control --in order to preserve the democratic polity and historical American ideals, say "government by consent of the governed."

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

I personally think that our contemporary division has important differences from the Gilded Age that set it apart. Our society, our cities, the aspirations of a diverse country, are different from those of the XIX century. The Gilded Age developed after the CW.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kausel & readers,

Thanks for your further thoughts. You are right that the comparison in full is a quite enormous task. However, you do give a helpful sketch.

The comparison is surely a related theme, but notice the attempt to limit the current question to some particular high points of Gilded Age and Progressive era history:

What were the chief reforms in the U.S. Gilded Age and the Progressive Era?

The reforms, such as the introduction of the U.S. Civil Service system, and merit testing of civil service employees, or again, the passage of the Sherman Anti-trust act (1890), legislation concerned with working hours and wages, Child labor laws, the interstate Commerce Commission, etc, etc. are indicative of how people of those times saw their own problems and how they sought to deal with them.

I think you are correct that the leaders of the Progressive Era, which included, e.g., Presidents T. Roosevelt and Wilson, saw a threat to the U.S. political system in the phenomenon of growing inequalities, great concentrations of wealth and the relationship of machine politics and patronage to rampant corruption in the cities--exemplified by Boss Tweed, and the New York and Tammany Hall and the PA political machines.

The comparison to the present time is useful in motivating the present question, and I much appreciate your contributions. Insofar as we see the more substantial similarities and differences, we may also acquire some suggestions on the need of present-day reforms.

In principle, however, the present historical question stands independent.

Readers of the present thread may find the following link helpful:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/the-progressive-era/

Please have a look.

H.G. Callaway

One person's reform is another person's repression.

In the late 1950s the top tax rate in America was 90%, President Kennedy dropped this significantly, and what followed in the 1960s the American economy boomed. Is cutting the top tax rate a reform? Or does it just aid the richest Americans?

In 1919 the government made the sale of alcohol illegal. It was considered at the time to be part of the great reform and progressive movement. It led to the undying establishment of nation-wide organized crime that is still with us.

Why is no one discussing the great reform of putting an end to endless money-printing? Is that a reform that is needed? Or would that slow down the economy?

So what these reforms that people are hinting at? Can anyone spell them out?

Or is "reform" just a slogan .... and the less said about it, the more we can all imagine it is a good thing?

I notice that many seem to think that a change/reform has immediate effect. So reforms taken in the Gilded age at the Federal level required decades to experience the long term effect. Reforms in the Gilded age brought on the ceasing of economic growth of the early 20th century. The reforms of T. Roosevelt and Wilson and FDR took until the 1950's to take effects and the reforms of JFK and LBJ started to be measured in 1970- the beginning off a long term worsening of income inequality which is still happening under Obama. it'll be a few more years to see the effect of Trump. It would seem these humanitarian motivated reforms are contrary to nature - bad.

I recommended the answer provided by Stephen Martin Fritz

Best Regards H.G. Callaway

I recommended the answer provided by Stephen Martin Fritz

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

I have just made available the Pretext of my new book, due out in January 2020. The title of the book is Lincoln Steffens' The Shame of the Cities and the Philosophy of Corruption and Reform. The Pretext for the book contains my Preface and the Table of Contents.

Book Preface and Table of Contents for LINCOLN STEFFENS' THE SHAM...

The Cover design is also available:

Book SteffensShame coverimage

Please have a look, comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Fritz & readers,

The character of reforms that recommend themselves depends on the actual problems encountered. Briefly, I would say that in our own times this has much to do with growing inequalities over decades and large-scale growth of concentrations of wealth and political power. Some, of course, would not see this as a problem. That requires looking into the details, too.

In any case, there are going to be better and worse proposals for reform; and merely proposing something as a reform does not validate it. To evaluate proposals for reform one very much needs to consider the details of the problems encountered and of the proposed solutions. That's the general answer.

I don't think it is any great surprise that some past proposals have misfired.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Or is "reform" just a slogan .... and the less said about it, the more we can all imagine it is a good thing?

https://earthsharing.org/library/hazen-s-pingree-and-the-detroit-model-of-urban-reform/

Article Hazen S. Pingree and the Detroit Model of Urban Reform

Would like to point to the works of Dr. Laugh on Hazen Pingree, with respect to your query.

The problem with the concept and practice of "reform" is that it presumes humans have the knowledge to do such thing. The failure of so many ultimately leads to collapse. Trial-and-error seems the only way forward.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Readers of this thread may want to have a look at the following Bibliography from my new study edition of Lincoln Steffens' The Shame of the Cities and the Philosophy of Corruption and Reform.

See:

Data Bibliography for Lincoln Steffens' The Shame of the Cities a...

The sources were assembled (Steffens had listed no readings) to better understand the phenomenon of late Gilded Age corruption and the subsequent reforms.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Callaghan & readers,

Thanks for your brief note on this thread.

I do not doubt that the post-Civil War era began a time of vast economic development. Still the economic development was often uneven; (and 1970-1980, unfortunately also marked a low point for Philadelphia).

The Gilded Age was, no doubt a time of great economic innovation; but it also belongs to American political lore that it was the period of the "robber Barons," child labor, mass dislocation, the rise of the Populist party and the time of William Jennings Bryan, and his "Cross of Gold" speech --which won him the Democratic nomination for President in 1896.

The Gilded Age and the following Progressive Era, usually divided by President Teddy Roosevelt coming into office in 1901, were also a time of many and varied economic and political reforms, and one purpose of this question is to come to some understanding of the contrasts between growing economic progress, economic pain and progressive reform. Looking in some detail at the most significant reforms, I suppose, could help us to understand the apparent paradox of vast economic growth and increasing misery.

So what were the chief reforms and what were their grounds or reasons? Can you help?

H.G. Callaway

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act set the theoretical precedent for action against monopolistic business practices. Actual prosecution of trusts had to wait until Theodore Roosevelt and Taft.

Dr. H.G. Callaway, what ever happened to the public's anti-trust sentiment, which was once such an active part of political discourse? Many excellent books have touched on the impossibility of "trust-busting" in the 21st century.

One issue is that so-called "intellectual property" now dominates "post-industrial" business in America and as such facilitates the absurd monolithic business entities we now live with.

Too bad the so-called modern-day progressives seem to love monopolistic corporations, especially ones that appeal to their ideological sensibilities.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Timothy & readers,

Yes, the Sherman Antitrust act was passed into law in 1890, under the Republican administration of Benjamin Harrison. Both Harrison and Grover Cleveland had campaigned for antitrust in the presidential election of 1888, and the act is named for a prominent Republican politician of the time John Sherman. In spite of that, the Republican party of the Gilded Age was closely linked to the large trusts and corporations of those times. Democrat Cleveland was elected to a subsequent term in 1892, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans (under Harrison and McKinley --elected in 1896) brought the law into action against the Trusts. It was left to our "accidental" President, T.R. Roosevelt, to use the law against Standard Oil after becoming President in 1901. Effectively, both the Democrats and the Republicans sat on their hands for more than a decade after the Sherman act became law.

Much could be said about the contemporary neglect of antitrust --at least since the Regan and Clinton administrations. This would be a great sub-theme to explore here. The contemporary narrowing of the concept has much to do with the scholarly career of Judge Robert Bork. See, for instance, the following article from The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/20/antitrust-was-defined-by-robert-bork-i-cannot-overstate-his-influence/

I quote from the article by Dylan Matthews :

In 1960, he was concerned the socialists would take over the country through antitrust. Antitrust then was about protecting small businesses. He built a full framework about how antitrust should be more about economic efficiency than about helping small businesses. He expanded upon this in articles and the book, The Antitrust Paradox, in 1978. He wrote a sentence: Congress enacted the Sherman act [ed - the main antitrust act] as a "consumer welfare prescription.” The Supreme Court adopted that sentence in 1979. That is the stated goal in antitrust today. It is a big deal. A huge deal. In antitrust, it’s operational. Robert Bork defined it.

---End quotation

Thinking of antitrust as merely about "consumer welfare," we neglect other sorts of "market power" of extremely large corporations --not to mention effects of concentrated market power on wages. For example, very large firms have a kind of market power if they can exert downward pressure on the prices they pay to their suppliers, keep their prices to consumers low, and in this fashion continually gain market share. Many smaller competitors may be forced out of business --lacking any comparable market power, and this in turn will eliminate possible competition among employers --depressing wages. One notices at present the "prominence of the category of "gig workers" --often lacking a living wage, employment benefits and job security.

Much more could be said. By the way, though the Sherman act is very important, it was not the first of the great reforms.

H.G. Callaway

H.G. Callaway, bravo! - thank you for your detailed follow-up! As a Steffens scholar, you are probably aware of Doris Kearns Goodwin's 'The Bully Pulpit', which, in my opinion, a great overview of the issues in question, written in a narrative style for the general public.

I agree with your assessment that the problem of 'trusts' is far more complex than its effects on consumer choice and prices, and indeed this in now a relatively minor aspect of what makes monopolies so problematic. It has to do with power. A large enough, and dominant enough corporate entity simply yields so much power over political and social matters that we cannot even predict the resulting repercussions - Google being a prime example.

Many excellent books and articles exist on the matter. A personal favorite is the book Economism, by James Kwak. See, for example, his article linked below, which is on the issues your raised in your reply.

https://economism.net/economism-economics-101-and-our-new-gilded-age-ff0b95be15b2

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Timothy & readers,

I've come across a review of Doris Goodwin's "The Bully Pulpit," which may interest readers of this thread:

"Heroes and Crusaders" by Bill Keller, which appeared in the New York Times.

See:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/books/review/doris-kearns-goodwins-bully-pulpit.html

I quote from the review:

Like her last book, “Team of Rivals,” which prompted talk-show comparisons of Abraham Lincoln’s and Barack Obama’s inclusive approaches to cabinet-making, her new book implicitly invites us to look afresh at our own time. In the 1890s, as now, there was a growing preoccupation with economic inequality. Then, as now, the liveliest political drama played out within a bitterly divided Republican Party. But back then the Republican insurgents were progressives, among them Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, challenging the party’s long defense of laissez-faire and building a federal regulatory apparatus. Now, as William Howard Taft’s great-grandson pointed out in a recent Op-Ed lament, the Republican insurgents champion “bomb-throwing obstructionism” and “empty nihilism” in an effort to dismantle the regulatory machinery the progressives constructed. I foresee a lot of Doris Kearns Goodwin on “Morning Joe” and “Charlie Rose” in the weeks ahead.

---End quotation

It looks like a very good book. I do have it on hand here, though I am yet to go through it. Working on Lincoln Steffens, I was more concerned to work from original sources and several standard biographies.

H.G. Callaway

I have few information, better to follow your discussion. Thank you all.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Readers of this thread may find the following "Introduction" of interest:

Book Introduction: STEFFENS, THE CITIES, GILDED AGE CORRUPTION AND REFORM

This is the "Introduction" to my 2020 edition of Steffens, The Shame of the Cities. It contains a good deal of information on the progress of anti-corruption reforms during and following the Gilded Age.

Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway

H.G. Callaway

Read your "Introduction". I note the "corruption" regimes were voted into office. Fascism was voted into office. However, such corruption does not stand the test of time (survival). Detroit ultimately went bankrupt. The city administrations that allow/cause riots in cities today will/have experience an exodus of producing business - producing people voting with their feet. It seems the humanitarian angles allow the number of welfare voters to outnumber the producers. Mother nature then steps in. The time this takes is years, but in the end collapse happens. Perhaps a society could encourage voting with feet rather than ballet voting. Or perhaps the voting register should require the voter to be a taxpayer. However voting is done, Mother Natures way which is very cruel will happen if humanity doesn't self correct.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge & readers,

Thanks for your attention to my "Introduction" to the Lincoln Steffens book. I hope you'll want to read the full book. The heart of my edition is in the annotations to Steffens' own writings on the cities. I've also included a Chronology of events a bibliography of Steffens' sources and related materials and the first index for Steffens' book.

See:

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/lincoln-steffenss-the-shame-of-the-cities-and-the-philosophy-of-corruption-and-reform

Yes, the corrupt municipal and state regimes were voted into office--and repeatedly re-elected. I go into greater depth on Philadelphia and Gilded Age Pennsylvania in the Introduction partly because the corrupt regime in Philadelphia was Steffens' paradigm of municipal corruption and also because I think he got it about right. But one cannot really understand the local corruption in Philadelphia without seeing its place in the corrupt state system and the relation of the state and national politics. The same party dominated city politics from the Civil War until the early 1950s. Subsequently, we have had the other party in power over the following 65-70 years. This alone suggests a great deal of passivity in the electorate.

Philadelphia hit its peak in population at about 2 million around 1950. It has subsequently shrunk down to about 1.5 million --with slight increases recently. The great industries that dominated the Gilded Age in the city and the state, railroads, coal and steel, are gone; and they have not been replaced with anything quite so substantial. So, in a sense, people have "voted with their feet," and left the city--though often for the immediate suburbs.

In understanding Gilded Age corruption, it is important to realize that the public acceptance and acquiescence in the corrupt system was partly based in the conviction among those who benefited most from it that "Pennsylvania, Inc.," was, so to speak, a very successful program of industrialization and modernization, producing what has been called, "the middle-class city" with all the modern conveniences. (You could take the local commuter trains into Center city from the newly built outer neighborhoods, say, and shop at Wanamakers.)

Steffens' asked of his times, "Do the ends justify the means?" He had substantial support from a national reformist movement. Wherever he went, he got the insider story from the working journalists of that city. He had all the right connections, from President Teddy Roosevelt down to local reporters.

H.G. Callaway

Is it corruption if the city grows and the citizens prosper?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge & readers,

You might like to pursue the following book:

John Henry Hepp, IV. 2003, The Middle-Class City Transforming Space and Time in Philadelphia, 1876-1926. Philadelphia: UPenn Press.

See:

https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/13906.html

I quote from the publisher's description of the book:

The classic historical interpretation of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in America sees this period as a political search for order by the middle class, culminating in Progressive Era reforms. In The Middle-Class City, John Hepp examines transformations in everyday middle-class life in Philadelphia between 1876 and 1926 to discover the cultural roots of this search for order. By looking at complex relationships among members of that city's middle class and three largely bourgeois commercial institutions—newspapers, department stores, and railroads—Hepp finds that the men and women of the middle class consistently reordered their world along rational lines.

---end quotation

I enjoyed reading this book. I think of it as telling the story from the perspective of the growing middle-class of the city during the Gilded Age. The "captains of industry" were heros to be followed. People were jumping on the bandwagon of "the next big thing," buying houses, reading newspapers, riding trains and the expanding streetcar lines, shopping at Wanamaker's, etc. (John Wanamaker was also a hero. He was founder of the great department store --since gone bankrupt--, Postmaster General in the cabinet of President Benjamin Harrison and a dogged opponent of corruptionist in chief, U.S. Senator Mathew Quay. There is still a statue of Wanamaker outside City Hall.)

People too often closed their eyes to the rampant corruption both in politics and in business practices. Lincoln Steffens reminded them of the costs. Certainly I would like to see some growth of local industry and jobs in the city and the state, but I think people would not like to repeat the massive corruption of the Gilded Age.

In spite of that, we now have a new "Gilded Age." Given its globalizing character, though, it is not producing domestic industry and jobs.

H.G. Callaway

---you asked---

Is it corruption if the city grows and the citizens prosper?

H.G. Callaway

I've ordered the Steffen's book, "The shame..." as you suggested.

I've followed this question periodically. My study is to determine a better government which fosters survival for its citizens in a changing environment with limited resources. It seems to me the definition of "corruption" is lacking. So, I suggest if a government is yielding growth and survival it cannot be negative even if the form seems corrupt t some. So, far the US grew during the 1800s. The growth slowed in TR presidency which saw the fight against trusts. The growth slowed thru FDR and started decline with JFK and LBJ. So, it seems the label of corruption belongs those practices which are Steffen's corrections (anti-Steffen). That is, trusts are good for the country, anti-trust is bad.

The question is what characteristics of Government helps survival? Some of the "corruption" characteristics are actually good (aid survival).

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge & readers,

Well, I can tell you that Steffens found some of the corrupt politicians and local bosses quite likable and personable. He interviewed many of them in the various cities he wrote about. (Also, its perhaps of interest that President Teddy Roosevelt went to Western PA to visit at the deathbed of PA Republican boss Matthew Quay in 1904. Apparently the Senator had been supportive of Roosevelt's legislative goals?)

According to Steffens, the city political bosses were basically in politics to advance their own personal interests in power and wealth; but they were willing to do what the public demanded. The trouble was that the public didn't demand very much of them. They were not often held accountable to the public good, and in consequence they tended to ignore it.

I think we have to take seriously the idea of a kind of self-blinding which develops during long and intensive episodes of economic expansion and development. People only see a limited amount and they tend to focus on "What's in it for me?" (The current phrase is something like "looking for the next big thing.") That means that there is a great deal that they do not see --or do not care to see. They "go along in order to get along," to use the Philadelphia expression for acquiescence, and in consequence they do not understand the negative consequences involved, say, in great concentrations of wealth and power --in fewer and fewer hands.

According to Steffens, if this process is not stopped (for example by antitrust action), then the ultimate result is oligarchy. None but the few at the top of the economic ladder will ultimately benefit. We are now seeing signs of such a negative development, since with wages failing to advance, there is some doubt that industry will be able to survive the lack of demand for their products. At that point, the oligarchy seals itself off from the rest of society, dividing the rich few who rule in their own narrow self-interest, from the many poor who lack significant opportunity. Many contemporary societies exemplify this static pattern. Even here in the city, there is reason to think that the large areas of poverty and unemployment will tend to hold everyone back.

My paper on "oligarchic structures" may interest you.

See:

Presentation Oligarchic Structures and Democratic Networks

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

The question is what characteristics of Government helps survival? Some of the "corruption" characteristics are actually good (aid survival).

I extend your point to (universal - everybody may vote) democratic structures tend to oligarchy then to socialism/communism such as in Venezuela.

For my part, I have a difficult time labeling the Gilded age (late 1800s) in the US as a bad structure that society/laws should tend to repress. Indeed, the beginning of anti-trust started a slowing and eventual change in the oligarch structure from the business leaders to the political background leaders. A comparison suggests to be that a successful business background is preferred to the political if some form of oligarchy is necessary. However, hopefully there is an alternative that doesn't require the society to collapse or go bankrupt. Detroit is still not completely recovered.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge & readers,

Its true that on the Aristotelian account, "pure" democracy tends to degenerate into tyranny. (Its "aristocracy" that tends to degenerate into oligarchy.) Recall the liberal dictum of Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." By this reasoning, the best strategy is to avoid excessive concentration of power, either public or private, and this may require some shifting back and forth depending on the particular situation of the times.

The U.S. founders avoided "pure" democracy in favor of government by "the consent of the governed," and a "mixed constitution" of democratic and anti-majoritarian institutions. There are certain things that majorities and elected majorities are forbidden to do --including prohibitions listed in the "Bill of Rights." I do not think we would want a "purely" democratic form of government. Consider only the role of the Supreme Court in protecting constitutional rights. Both laws passed by Congress and state laws get overturned.

The states had passed various antitrust laws and regulations of industry before the 1890 passage of the Sherman Antitrust law. But both President Cleveland and Republican challenger Benjamin Harrison had campaigned on antitrust in 1888 (Harrison won). Congress has ultimate constitutional power over interstate commerce, and a federal statute was needed to accomplish the goal of controlling the great trusts of the U.S. Gilded Age. In spite of that, effective use of the Sherman act waited until President Teddy Roosevelt arrived in office in 1901. It continued under Presidents Taft and Wilson.

The greater shift toward the power of the federal government, as I see it, took place under President Wilson, especially after U.S. entry into WWI in 1917. The country was regimented to fight the war. But the brief Spanish-American War of 1898, under President McKinley, was an important precursor, as was the gradual build-up of the U.S. Navy, dating at least to President Cleveland.

What's the old saying? "War is the health of the state."

H.G. Callaway