went on strike,carrying signs:"WE WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL!""55 HOURS OR NOTHING!" One gets a sense of the energy and fire of some of those turn-of-the-century radicals by looking at the police record of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn: 1906-16,Organizer,lecturer for I.W.W. 1918-24,Organizer,Workers Defense Union Arrested in New York,1906,free-speech case,dismissed;active in Spokane, Washington,free-speech fight,1909;arrested,Missoula,Montana,1909,in free-speech fight of I.W.W.,Spokane,Washington,free-speech fight of I.W.W,hundreds arrested;in Philadelphia arrested three times,1911,at strike;meetings of Baldwin Locomotive Works;active in Lawrence textile strike,1912;hotel-workers strike,1912,New York; Paterson textile strike,1913;defense work for Ettor-Giovanitti case,1912;Mesaba Range strike,Minnesota,1916;Everett IWW case,Spokane,Washington,1916;Joe Hill defense,1914.Arrested Duluth,Minnesota,1917,charged with vagrancy under law passed to stop I.W.W.and pacifist speakers,case dismissed.Indicted in Chicago IWW case,1917.. Black women faced double oppression.A Negro nurse wrote to a newspaper in 1912: We poor colored women wage-earners in the South are figlting a terrible battle....On the one hand,we are assailed by black men,who should be our natural protectors;and, whether in the cook kitchen,at the washtub,over the sewing machine,behind the baby carriage,or at the ironing board,we are but little more than pack horses,beasts of burden, slaves！. se In this early part of the twentieth century,kbeled by generations of white scholars as "the Progressive period,"lynchings were reported every week;it was the low point for Negroes,North and South,"the nadir,"as Rayford Logan,a black historian,put it.In 1910 there were 10 million Negroes in the United States,and 9 million of them were in the South. The government of the United States(between 1901 and 1921,the Presidents were Theodore Roosevelt,William Howard Taft,Woodrow Wilson)-whether Republican or Democrat-watched Negrogs being lynched,observed murderous riots against blacks in Statesboro,Georgia,Brownsville,Texas,and Atlanta,Georgia,and did nothing. There were Negroes in the Socialist party,but the Socialist party did not go much out of its way to act on the race question.As Ray Ginger writes of Debs:"When race prejudice was thrust at Debs,he always publicly repudiated it.He always insisted on absolute equality.But he failed to accept the view that special measures were sometimes needed to achieve this equality." Blacks began to organize:a National Afro-American Council formed in 1903 to protest against lynching,peonage,discrimination,disfranchisement;the National Association of Colored Women,formed around the same time,condemned segregation and lynchings.In Georgia in 1906 there was an Equal Rights Convention,which pointed to 260 Georgia Negroes lynched since 1885.It asked the right to vote,the right to enter the militia,to be on juries.It agreed blacks should work hard."And at the same time we must agitate,complain,protest and keep protesting against the invasion of our manhood rights...." W.E.B.Du Bois,teaching in Atlanta,Georgia,in 1905,sent out a letter to Negro leaders throughout the country,calling them to a conference just across the Canadian
went on strike, carrying signs: "WE WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL!" "55 HOURS OR NOTHING!" One gets a sense of the energy and fire of some of those turn-of-the-century radicals by looking at the police record of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn: 1906-16, Organizer, lecturer for I.W.W. 1918-24, Organizer, Workers Defense Union Arrested in New York, 1906, free-speech case, dismissed; active in Spokane, Washington, free-speech fight, 1909; arrested, Missoula, Montana, 1909, in free-speech fight of I.W.W., Spokane, Washington, free-speech fight of I.W.W, hundreds arrested; in Philadelphia arrested three times, 1911, at strike; meetings of Baldwin Locomotive Works; active in Lawrence textile strike, 1912; hotel-workers strike, 1912, New York; Paterson textile strike, 1913; defense work for Ettor-Giovanitti case, 1912; Mesaba Range strike, Minnesota, 1916; Everett IWW case, Spokane, Washington, 1916; Joe Hill defense, 1914. Arrested Duluth, Minnesota, 1917, charged with vagrancy under law passed to stop I.W.W. and pacifist speakers, case dismissed. Indicted in Chicago IWW case, 1917... . Black women faced double oppression. A Negro nurse wrote to a newspaper in 1912: We poor colored women wage-earners in the South are fighting a terrible battle. ... On the one hand, we are assailed by black men, who should be our natural protectors; and, whether in the cook kitchen, at the washtub, over the sewing machine, behind the baby carriage, or at the ironing board, we are but little more than pack horses, beasts of burden, slaves! ... In this early part of the twentieth century, labeled by generations of white scholars as "the Progressive period," lynchings were reported every week; it was the low point for Negroes, North and South, "the nadir," as Rayford Logan, a black historian, put it. In 1910 there were 10 million Negroes in the United States, and 9 million of them were in the South. The government of the United States (between 1901 and 1921, the Presidents were Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson)-whether Republican or Democrat-watched Negroes being lynched, observed murderous riots against blacks in Statesboro, Georgia, Brownsville, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia, and did nothing. There were Negroes in the Socialist party, but the Socialist party did not go much out of its way to act on the race question. As Ray Ginger writes of Debs: "When race prejudice was thrust at Debs, he always publicly repudiated it. He always insisted on absolute equality. But he failed to accept the view that special measures were sometimes needed to achieve this equality." Blacks began to organize: a National Afro-American Council formed in 1903 to protest against lynching, peonage, discrimination, disfranchisement; the National Association of Colored Women, formed around the same time, condemned segregation and lynchings. In Georgia in 1906 there was an Equal Rights Convention, which pointed to 260 Georgia Negroes lynched since 1885. It asked the right to vote, the right to enter the militia, to be on juries. It agreed blacks should work hard. "And at the same time we must agitate, complain, protest and keep protesting against the invasion of our manhood rights.. ,." W. E. B. Du Bois, teaching in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1905, sent out a letter to Negro leaders throughout the country, calling them to a conference just across the Canadian no profit use only
border from Buffalo,near Niagara Falls.It was the start of the "Niagara Movement." Du Bois,born in Massachusetts,the first black to receive a Ph.D.degree from Harvard University (1895),had just written and published his poetic,powerful book The Souls of Black Folk.Du Bois was a Socialist sympathizer,although only briefly a party member. One of his associates in calling the Niagara meeting was William Monroe Trotter,a young black man in Boston,of militant views,who edited a weekly newspaper,the Guardian.In it he attacked the moderate ideas of Booker T.Washington.When,in the summer of 1903,Washington spoke to an audience of two thousand at a Boston church, Trotter and his supporters prepared nine provocative questions,which caused a commotion and led to fistfights.Trotter and a friend were arrested.This may have added to the spirit of indignation which led Du Bois to spearhead the Niagara meeting.The tone of the Niagara group was strong: We refuse to allow the impression to remain that the Negro-American assents to inferiority,is submissive under oppression and apologetic before insults.Through helplessness we may submit,but the voice of protest of ten million Americans must never cease to assail the ears of their fellows so long as America is unjust. A race riot in Springfield,Illinois,prompted the formation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 19.Whites dominated the leadership of the new organization;Du Bois was the only prack officer.He was also the first editor of the NAACP periodical The Crisis.The NAACP concentrated on legal action and education,but Du Bois represented in icthat spirit which was embodied in the Niagara movement's declaration:"Persistent ma agitation is the way to liberty." What was clear in this period to blacks to feminists,to labor organizers and socialists,was that they could not count on the national government.True,this was the "Progressive Period,"the start of the Age of Reform;but it was a reluctant reform,aimed at quieting the popular risings,not making fundamental changes. What gave it the name"Progfossive"was that new laws were passed.Under Theodore Roosevelt,there was the Meat Inspection Act,the Hepburn Act to regulate railroads and pipelines,a Pute Food and Drug Act.Under Taff,the Mann-Elkins Act put telephone and telegraph systems under the regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission.In Woodrow Wilson's presidency,the Federal Trade Commission was introduced to control the growth of monopolies,and the Federal Reserve Act to regulate the country's money and banking system.Under Taft were proposed the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution,allowing a graduated income tax,and the Seventeenth Amendment,providing for the election of Senators directly by popular vote instead of by the state legislatures,as the original Constitution provided.Also at this time,a number of states passed laws regulating wages and hours,providing for safety inspection of factories and compensation for injured workmen. It was a time of public investigations aimed at soothing protest.In 1913 the Pujo Committee of Congress studied the concentration of power in the banking industry,and the Commission on Industrial Relations of the Senate held hearings on labor-management conflict. Undoubtedly,ordinary people benefited to some extent from these changes.The system was rich,productive,complex;it could give enough of a share of its riches to enough of the working class to create a protective shield between the bottom and the top
border from Buffalo, near Niagara Falls. It was the start of the "Niagara Movement." Du Bois, born in Massachusetts, the first black to receive a Ph.D. degree from Harvard University (1895), had just written and published his poetic, powerful book The Souls of Black Folk. Du Bois was a Socialist sympathizer, although only briefly a party member. One of his associates in calling the Niagara meeting was William Monroe Trotter, a young black man in Boston, of militant views, who edited a weekly newspaper, the Guardian. In it he attacked the moderate ideas of Booker T. Washington. When, in the summer of 1903, Washington spoke to an audience of two thousand at a Boston church, Trotter and his supporters prepared nine provocative questions, which caused a commotion and led to fistfights. Trotter and a friend were arrested. This may have added to the spirit of indignation which led Du Bois to spearhead the Niagara meeting. The tone of the Niagara group was strong: We refuse to allow the impression to remain that the Negro-American assents to inferiority, is submissive under oppression and apologetic before insults. Through helplessness we may submit, but the voice of protest of ten million Americans must never cease to assail the ears of their fellows so long as America is unjust. A race riot in Springfield, Illinois, prompted the formation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1910. Whites dominated the leadership of the new organization; Du Bois was the only black officer. He was also the first editor of the NAACP periodical The Crisis. The NAACP concentrated on legal action and education, but Du Bois represented in it that spirit which was embodied in the Niagara movement's declaration: "Persistent manly agitation is the way to liberty." What was clear in this period to blacks, to feminists, to labor organizers and socialists, was that they could not count on the national government. True, this was the "Progressive Period," the start of the Age of Reform; but it was a reluctant reform, aimed at quieting the popular risings, not making fundamental changes. What gave it the name "Progressive" was that new laws were passed. Under Theodore Roosevelt, there was the Meat Inspection Act, the Hepburn Act to regulate railroads and pipelines, a Pure Food and Drug Act. Under Taff, the Mann-Elkins Act put telephone and telegraph systems under the regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission. In Woodrow Wilson's presidency, the Federal Trade Commission was introduced to control the growth of monopolies, and the Federal Reserve Act to regulate the country's money and banking system. Under Taft were proposed the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, allowing a graduated income tax, and the Seventeenth Amendment, providing for the election of Senators directly by popular vote instead of by the state legislatures, as the original Constitution provided. Also at this time, a number of states passed laws regulating wages and hours, providing for safety inspection of factories and compensation for injured workmen. It was a time of public investigations aimed at soothing protest. In 1913 the Pujo Committee of Congress studied the concentration of power in the banking industry, and the Commission on Industrial Relations of the Senate held hearings on labor-management conflict. Undoubtedly, ordinary people benefited to some extent from these changes. The system was rich, productive, complex; it could give enough of a share of its riches to enough of the working class to create a protective shield between the bottom and the top no profit use only
of the society.A study of immigrants in New York between 1905 and 1915 finds that 32 percent of Italians and Jews rose out of the manual class to higher levels(although not to much higher levels).But it was also true that many Italian immigrants did not find the opportunities inviting enough for them to stay.In one four-year period,seventy-three Italians left New York for every one hundred that arrived.Still,enough Italians became construction workers,enough Jews became businessmen and professionals,to create a middle-class cushion for class conflict. Fundamental conditions did not change,however,for the vast majority of tenant farmers,factory workers,slum dwellers,miners,farm laborers,working men and women, black and white.Robert Wiebe sees in the Progressive movement an attempt by the system to adjust to changing conditions in order to achieve more stability."Through rules with impersonal sanctions,it sought continuity and predictability in a world of endless change.It assigned far greater power to government...and it encouraged the centralization of authority.Harold Faulkner concluded that this new emphasis on strong government was for the benefit of "the most powerful economic groups. Gabriel Kolko calls it the emergence of "political capitalism,"where the businessmen took firmer control of the political system because the private economy was not efficient enough to forestall protest from below.The businessmen,Kolkd says,were not opposed to the new reforms;they initiated them,pushed them,to stabiNze the capitalist system in a time of uncertainty and trouble. O For instance,Theodore Roosevelt made a reputation for himself as a "trust-buster" (although his successor,Taft,a"conservative,"w Roosevelt was a"Progressive," launched more antitrust suits than did Roosevekmn fact,as Wiebe points out,two of J. P.Morgan's men-Elbert Gary,chairman ofU.S.Steel,and George Perkins,who would later become a campaigner for Roosevelt"arranged a general understanding with Roosevelt by which...they would cooperate in any investigation by the Bureau of Corporations in return for a guarante of their companies'legality."They would do this through private negotiations witk the President."A gentleman's agreement between reasonable people,"Wiebe says,with a bit of sarcasm. The panic of 1907,as as the growing strength of the Socialists,Wobblies,and trade unions,speeded the process of reform.According to Wiebe:"Around 1908 a qualitative shift in outlook occurred among large numbers of these men of authority...." The emphasis was now on "enticements and compromises."It continued with Wilson, and "a great many reform-minded citizens indulged the illusion of a progressive fulfillment." What radical critics now say of those reforms was said at the time(1901)by the Bankers'Magazine:"As the business of the country has learned the secret of combination,it is gradually subverting the power of the politician and rendering him subservient to its purposes..,." There was much to stabilize,much to protect.By 1904,318 trusts,with capital of more than seven billion dollars,controlled 40%of the U.S.manufacturing. In 1909,a manifesto of the new Progressivism appeared-a book called The Promise ofAmerican Life by Herbert Croly,editor of the New Republic and an admirer of Theodore Roosevelt.He saw the need for discipline and regulation if the American system were to continue.Government should do more,he said,and he hoped to see the "sincere and enthusiastic imitation of heroes and saints"-by whom he may have meant
of the society. A study of immigrants in New York between 1905 and 1915 finds that 32 percent of Italians and Jews rose out of the manual class to higher levels (although not to much higher levels). But it was also true that many Italian immigrants did not find the opportunities inviting enough for them to stay. In one four-year period, seventy-three Italians left New York for every one hundred that arrived. Still, enough Italians became construction workers, enough Jews became businessmen and professionals, to create a middle-class cushion for class conflict. Fundamental conditions did not change, however, for the vast majority of tenant farmers, factory workers, slum dwellers, miners, farm laborers, working men and women, black and white. Robert Wiebe sees in the Progressive movement an attempt by the system to adjust to changing conditions in order to achieve more stability. "Through rules with impersonal sanctions, it sought continuity and predictability in a world of endless change. It assigned far greater power to government . .. and it encouraged the centralization of authority." Harold Faulkner concluded that this new emphasis on strong government was for the benefit of "the most powerful economic groups." Gabriel Kolko calls it the emergence of "political capitalism," where the businessmen took firmer control of the political system because the private economy was not efficient enough to forestall protest from below. The businessmen, Kolko says, were not opposed to the new reforms; they initiated them, pushed them, to stabilize the capitalist system in a time of uncertainty and trouble. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt made a reputation for himself as a "trust-buster" (although his successor, Taft, a "conservative," while Roosevelt was a "Progressive," launched more antitrust suits than did Roosevelt). In fact, as Wiebe points out, two of J. P. Morgan's men- Elbert Gary, chairman of U.S. Steel, and George Perkins, who would later become a campaigner for Roosevelt- "arranged a general understanding with Roosevelt by which . . . they would cooperate in any investigation by the Bureau of Corporations in return for a guarantee of their companies' legality." They would do this through private negotiations with the President. "A gentleman's agreement between reasonable people," Wiebe says, with a bit of sarcasm. The panic of 1907, as well as the growing strength of the Socialists, Wobblies, and trade unions, speeded the process of reform. According to Wiebe: "Around 1908 a qualitative shift in outlook occurred among large numbers of these men of authority.. . ." The emphasis was now on "enticements and compromises." It continued with Wilson, and "a great many reform-minded citizens indulged the illusion of a progressive fulfillment." What radical critics now say of those reforms was said at the time (1901) by the Bankers' Magazine: "As the business of the country has learned the secret of combination, it is gradually subverting the power of the politician and rendering him subservient to its purposes. . , ." There was much to stabilize, much to protect. By 1904, 318 trusts, with capital of more than seven billion dollars, controlled 40% of the U.S. manufacturing. In 1909, a manifesto of the new Progressivism appeared-a book called The Promise of American Life by Herbert Croly, editor of the New Republic and an admirer of Theodore Roosevelt. He saw the need for discipline and regulation if the American system were to continue. Government should do more, he said, and he hoped to see the "sincere and enthusiastic imitation of heroes and saints"- by whom he may have meant no profit use only
Theodore Roosevelt. Richard Hofstadter,in his biting chapter on the man the public saw as the great lover of nature and physical fitness,the war hero,the Boy Scout in the White House,says: "The advisers to whom Roosevelt listened were almost exclusively representatives of industrial and finance capital-men like Hanna,Robert Bacon,and George W.Perkins of the House of Morgan,Elihu Root,Senator Nelson W.Aldrich...and James Stillman of the Rockefeller interests."Responding to his worried brother-in-law writing from Wall Street,Roosevelt replied:"I intend to be most conservative,but in the interests of the corporations themselves and above all in the interests of the country." Roosevelt supported the regulatory Hepburn Act because he feared something worse. He wrote to Henry Cabot Lodge that the railroad lobbyists who opposed the bill were wrong:"I think they are very shortsighted not to understand that to beat it means to increase the movement for government ownership of the railroads."His action against the trusts was to induce them to accept government regulation,in order to prevent destruction.He prosecuted the Morgan railroad monopoly in the Northern Securities Case,considering it an antitrust victory,but it hardly changed anything,and,although the Sherman Act provided for criminal penalties,there was no prosecution of the men who had planned the monopoly-Morgan,Harriman,Hill. As for Woodrow Wilson,Hofstadter points out he wageonservative from the start. As a historian and political scientist,Wilson wrote(The Sme):"In politics nothing radically novel may safely be attempted."He urged "slow and gradual"change.This attitude toward labor,Hofstadter says,was "generdly hostile,and he spoke of the "crude and ignorant minds"of the Populists. James Weinstein (The Corporate Idealin the Liberal State)has studied the reforms of the Progressive period,especially the process by which business and government, sometimes with the aid of labor leaders,worked out the legislative changes they thought necessary.Weinstein sees "a conscio and successful effort to guide and control the economic and social policies of federal,state,and municipal governments by various business groupings in their own long-range interest..."While the "original impetus"for reform came from protesters and radicals,"in the current century,particularly on the federal level,few reforms were enacted without the tacit approval,if not the guidance,of the large corporate interests."These interests assembled liberal reformers and intellectuals to aid them in such matters. Weinstein's definition of liberalism-as a means of stabilizing the system in the interests of big business-is different from that of the liberals themselves.Arthur Schlesinger writes:"Liberalism in America has been ordinarily the movement on the part of the other sections of society to restrain the power of the business community."If Schlesinger is describing the hope or intent of these other sections,he may be right.If he is describing the actual effect of these liberal reforms,that restraint has not happened. The controls were constructed skillfully.In 1900,a man named Ralph Easley,a Republican and conservative,a schoolteacher and journalist,organized the National Civic Federation.Its aim was to get better relations between capital and labor.Its officers were mostly big businessmen,and important national politicians,but its first vice-president,for a long time,was Samuel Gompers of the AFL.Not all big businesses liked what the National Civic Federation was doing.Easley called these critics anarchists,opposed to the rational organization of the system."In fact,"Easley wrote,"our enemies are the
Theodore Roosevelt. Richard Hofstadter, in his biting chapter on the man the public saw as the great lover of nature and physical fitness, the war hero, the Boy Scout in the White House, says: "The advisers to whom Roosevelt listened were almost exclusively representatives of industrial and finance capital-men like Hanna, Robert Bacon, and George W. Perkins of the House of Morgan, Elihu Root, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich ... and James Stillman of the Rockefeller interests." Responding to his worried brother-in-law writing from Wall Street, Roosevelt replied: "I intend to be most conservative, but in the interests of the corporations themselves and above all in the interests of the country." Roosevelt supported the regulatory Hepburn Act because he feared something worse. He wrote to Henry Cabot Lodge that the railroad lobbyists who opposed the bill were wrong: "I think they are very shortsighted not to understand that to beat it means to increase the movement for government ownership of the railroads." His action against the trusts was to induce them to accept government regulation, in order to prevent destruction. He prosecuted the Morgan railroad monopoly in the Northern Securities Case, considering it an antitrust victory, but it hardly changed anything, and, although the Sherman Act provided for criminal penalties, there was no prosecution of the men who had planned the monopoly-Morgan, Harriman, Hill. As for Woodrow Wilson, Hofstadter points out he was a conservative from the start. As a historian and political scientist, Wilson wrote (The State): "In politics nothing radically novel may safely be attempted." He urged "slow and gradual" change. This attitude toward labor, Hofstadter says, was "generally hostile," and he spoke of the "crude and ignorant minds" of the Populists. James Weinstein (The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State) has studied the reforms of the Progressive period, especially the process by which business and government, sometimes with the aid of labor leaders, worked out the legislative changes they thought necessary. Weinstein sees "a conscious and successful effort to guide and control the economic and social policies of federal, state, and municipal governments by various business groupings in their own long-range interest..." While the "original impetus" for reform came from protesters and radicals, "in the current century, particularly on the federal level, few reforms were enacted without the tacit approval, if not the guidance, of the large corporate interests." These interests assembled liberal reformers and intellectuals to aid them in such matters. Weinstein's definition of liberalism-as a means of stabilizing the system in the interests of big business-is different from that of the liberals themselves. Arthur Schlesinger writes: "Liberalism in America has been ordinarily the movement on the part of the other sections of society to restrain the power of the business community." If Schlesinger is describing the hope or intent of these other sections, he may be right. If he is describing the actual effect of these liberal reforms, that restraint has not happened. The controls were constructed skillfully. In 1900, a man named Ralph Easley, a Republican and conservative, a schoolteacher and journalist, organized the National Civic Federation. Its aim was to get better relations between capital and labor. Its officers were mostly big businessmen, and important national politicians, but its first vice-president, for a long time, was Samuel Gompers of the AFL. Not all big businesses liked what the National Civic Federation was doing. Easley called these critics anarchists, opposed to the rational organization of the system. "In fact," Easley wrote, "our enemies are the no profit use only
Socialists among the labor people and the anarchists among the capitalists." The NCF wanted a more sophisticated approach to trade unions,seeing them as an inevitable reality,therefore wanting to come to agreements with them rather than fight with them:better to deal with a conservative union than face a militant one.After the Lawrence textile strike of 1912,John Golden,head of the conservative AFL Textile Union Workers,wrote Easley that the strike had given manufacturers "a very rapid education"and "some of them are falling all over themselves now to do business with our organization. The National Civic Federation did not represent all opinions in the business world; the National Association of Manufacturers didn't want to recognize organized labor in any way.Many businessmen did not want even the puny reforms proposed by the Civic Federation-but the Federation's approach represented the sophistication and authority of the modern state,determined to do what was best for the capitalist class as a whole,even if this irritated some capitalists.The new approach was concerned with the long-range stability of the system,even at the cost,sometimes,of short-term profits. Thus,the Federation drew up a model workmen's compensation bill in 1910,and the following year twelve states passed laws for compensation or accident insurance.When the Supreme Court said that year that New York's workmer's compensation law was unconstitutional because it deprived corporations of property without due process of law, Theodore Roosevelt was angry.Such decisions,he said,ayded "immensely to the strength of the Socialist Party."By 1920,forty-two states had workmen's compensation laws.As Weinstein says:"It represented a growing ihaturity and sophistication on the part of many large corporation leaders who had come to understand,as Theodore Roosevelt often told them,that social reforga was truly conservative." As for the Federal Trade Commission established by Congress in 1914 presumably to regulate trusts,a leader of the Civic Federation reported after several years of experience with it that it"has apparently been carrying on its work with the purpose of securing the confidence of well-inentioned business men,members of the great corporations as well as others In this period,cities also put through reforms,many of them giving power to city councils instead of mayors,or hiring city managers.The idea was more efficiency,more stability."The end result of the movements was to place city government firmly in the hands of the business class,"Weinstein says.What reformers saw as more democracy in city government,urban historian Samuel Hays sees as the centralization of power in fewer hands,giving business and professional men more direct control over city government. The Progressive movement,whether led by honest reformers like Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin or disguised conservatives like Roosevelt (who was the Progressive party candidate for President in 1912),seemed to understand it was fending off socialism. The Milwaukee Journal,a Progressive organ,said the conservatives "fight socialism blindly...while the Progressives fight it intelligently and seek to remedy the abuses and conditions upon which it thrives." Frank Munsey,a director of U.S.Steel,writing to Roosevelt,seeing him as the best candidate for 1912,confided in him that the United States must move toward a more "parental guardianship of the people"who needed "the sustaining and guiding hand of the State."It was "the work of the state to think for the people and plan for the people,"the
Socialists among the labor people and the anarchists among the capitalists." The NCF wanted a more sophisticated approach to trade unions, seeing them as an inevitable reality, therefore wanting to come to agreements with them rather than fight with them: better to deal with a conservative union than face a militant one. After the Lawrence textile strike of 1912, John Golden, head of the conservative AFL Textile Union Workers, wrote Easley that the strike had given manufacturers "a very rapid education" and "some of them are falling all over themselves now to do business with our organization." The National Civic Federation did not represent all opinions in the business world; the National Association of Manufacturers didn't want to recognize organized labor in any way. Many businessmen did not want even the puny reforms proposed by the Civic Federation-but the Federation's approach represented the sophistication and authority of the modern state, determined to do what was best for the capitalist class as a whole, even if this irritated some capitalists. The new approach was concerned with the long-range stability of the system, even at the cost, sometimes, of short-term profits. Thus, the Federation drew up a model workmen's compensation bill in 1910, and the following year twelve states passed laws for compensation or accident insurance. When the Supreme Court said that year that New York's workmen's compensation law was unconstitutional because it deprived corporations of property without due process of law, Theodore Roosevelt was angry. Such decisions, he said, added "immensely to the strength of the Socialist Party." By 1920, forty-two states had workmen's compensation laws. As Weinstein says: "It represented a growing maturity and sophistication on the part of many large corporation leaders who had come to understand, as Theodore Roosevelt often told them, that social reform was truly conservative." As for the Federal Trade Commission, established by Congress in 1914 presumably to regulate trusts, a leader of the Civic Federation reported after several years of experience with it that it "has apparently been carrying on its work with the purpose of securing the confidence of well- intentioned business men, members of the great corporations as well as others." In this period, cities also put through reforms, many of them giving power to city councils instead of mayors, or hiring city managers. The idea was more efficiency, more stability. "The end result of the movements was to place city government firmly in the hands of the business class," Weinstein says. What reformers saw as more democracy in city government, urban historian Samuel Hays sees as the centralization of power in fewer hands, giving business and professional men more direct control over city government. The Progressive movement, whether led by honest reformers like Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin or disguised conservatives like Roosevelt (who was the Progressive party candidate for President in 1912), seemed to understand it was fending off socialism. The Milwaukee Journal, a Progressive organ, said the conservatives "fight socialism blindly . .. while the Progressives fight it intelligently and seek to remedy the abuses and conditions upon which it thrives." Frank Munsey, a director of U.S. Steel, writing to Roosevelt, seeing him as the best candidate for 1912, confided in him that the United States must move toward a more "parental guardianship of the people" who needed "the sustaining and guiding hand of the State." It was "the work of the state to think for the people and plan for the people," the no profit use only