Samuel Damren
This is the second commentary in a series examining two periods of our history that Donald Trump claims were “great” compared to today. The first period, 1900–10, is the topic of this commentary.
The focus will examine the social structure, conditions, laws, and policies of that era to determine whether they constitute a model for MAGA Republicans to “Make America Great Again.”
The decade 1900-10 occurred at the very end of the “Gilded Age.” The industries that drove the economy included mining, steel, oil refinery, timber, railroads, and shipping were supported by powerful banks to finance upsurging growth and consolidation.
It was a period of cut-throat competition punctuated by the unprecedented wealth of “Robber Baron” owners.
Working conditions for the great masses of Americans who labored in those industries were brutal, dangerous, and unhealthy. The management practices of the companies could be, and many were, equally harsh.
American society was highly stratified. Laborers, low-level managers and office workers “knew their place.” They also knew that their continued livelihood was tenuous and wholly depended on satisfying unrelenting, and often callous, demands of senior management to increase productivity at a human cost.
The owners dictated working conditions, wages, and circumstance.
For individual laborers, “rocking the boat” was not a realistic alternative. Labor unions, the few that existed, did not have sufficient leverage to address legitimate concerns regarding working conditions. When strikes put businesses at a standstill, the government often intervened to shut down the work stoppage.
Office workers and low-level management who were not unfailing in praise, subservience, and deference to their “betters” could risk being shown the door at a whim.
Farming was the alternative driver of the economy. But in the pre-mechanized state that existed on most farms during the period, a farmer’s work was arduous from “dawn to dusk.” Farms and farming families were always subject to the unpredictability of nature.
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant males ruled the “roost.” For those above low-level management, life was certainly “good.” For WASPs higher up the corporate ladder, life was “great.” Not so much for everyone else.
Women could not vote nor, in most states, hold elected office or serve on juries.
Restrictions on property ownership by women varied. By 1900, married women could own property in their name, but many other restrictions impeded the economic freedom of women.
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, first introduced in Congress in 1878, expanded the right to vote to include women, but did not do so until it was ratified in 1920.
Being prohibited from voting and an independent right to property ownership was just one of the many ignominious, demeaning badges of inequality imposed on women at the turn of the 20th century.
Other discriminatory laws across the country prohibited individuals based on race from exercising rights as to where they lived, what jobs they could hold, where their children could go to school, and where they could dine, shop, and stay when traveling.
The plight of laborers, office workers, women, and people of color during the era was all the more desperate when you consider government programs that exist today but did not exist in 1900-10, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Today, 17 percent of the population or 56 million Americans 65 years and older receive and rely on Social Security and Medicare. Current life expectancy in America is 78 years. The life expectancy of Americans in 1900-10 was 48 years.
The high cost of health care is a legitimate concern to many working Americans. It was not a problem in 1900-10 because health care was rudimentary. It did not cost much because it did not provide much in the way of diagnosis or treatment. Health insurance from private companies or the government did not exist.
The same analysis given health care applies to a wide range of other government programs and private entities that now form a social safety net. For example, there were no government rules requiring workplace protections in 1900-10. OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, did not come into existence until 1971.
Likewise, there were no rules prohibiting widespread child labor that characterized the era. Between 1890 and 1910, the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reports that 18 percent of children ages 10-15 were part of the workforce. The jobs were not easy; many dangerous.
Educational opportunities for American children were extremely limited. There were 17 million students in 1900. Only 4 percent were enrolled in grades 9-12 and only 1 percent were enrolled in post-secondary education.
Programs for government sponsored loans to attend college did not exist.
There are additional factors to be considered in evaluating the supposed “greatness” of this era compared to today: the economy, housing, immigration, religious and ethnic bigotry, and crime.
Those factors will be examined in the next commentary in this series.
—————
Samuel Damren is a retired Detroit lawyer and author of “What Justice Looks Like.”
This is the second commentary in a series examining two periods of our history that Donald Trump claims were “great” compared to today. The first period, 1900–10, is the topic of this commentary.
The focus will examine the social structure, conditions, laws, and policies of that era to determine whether they constitute a model for MAGA Republicans to “Make America Great Again.”
The decade 1900-10 occurred at the very end of the “Gilded Age.” The industries that drove the economy included mining, steel, oil refinery, timber, railroads, and shipping were supported by powerful banks to finance upsurging growth and consolidation.
It was a period of cut-throat competition punctuated by the unprecedented wealth of “Robber Baron” owners.
Working conditions for the great masses of Americans who labored in those industries were brutal, dangerous, and unhealthy. The management practices of the companies could be, and many were, equally harsh.
American society was highly stratified. Laborers, low-level managers and office workers “knew their place.” They also knew that their continued livelihood was tenuous and wholly depended on satisfying unrelenting, and often callous, demands of senior management to increase productivity at a human cost.
The owners dictated working conditions, wages, and circumstance.
For individual laborers, “rocking the boat” was not a realistic alternative. Labor unions, the few that existed, did not have sufficient leverage to address legitimate concerns regarding working conditions. When strikes put businesses at a standstill, the government often intervened to shut down the work stoppage.
Office workers and low-level management who were not unfailing in praise, subservience, and deference to their “betters” could risk being shown the door at a whim.
Farming was the alternative driver of the economy. But in the pre-mechanized state that existed on most farms during the period, a farmer’s work was arduous from “dawn to dusk.” Farms and farming families were always subject to the unpredictability of nature.
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant males ruled the “roost.” For those above low-level management, life was certainly “good.” For WASPs higher up the corporate ladder, life was “great.” Not so much for everyone else.
Women could not vote nor, in most states, hold elected office or serve on juries.
Restrictions on property ownership by women varied. By 1900, married women could own property in their name, but many other restrictions impeded the economic freedom of women.
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, first introduced in Congress in 1878, expanded the right to vote to include women, but did not do so until it was ratified in 1920.
Being prohibited from voting and an independent right to property ownership was just one of the many ignominious, demeaning badges of inequality imposed on women at the turn of the 20th century.
Other discriminatory laws across the country prohibited individuals based on race from exercising rights as to where they lived, what jobs they could hold, where their children could go to school, and where they could dine, shop, and stay when traveling.
The plight of laborers, office workers, women, and people of color during the era was all the more desperate when you consider government programs that exist today but did not exist in 1900-10, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Today, 17 percent of the population or 56 million Americans 65 years and older receive and rely on Social Security and Medicare. Current life expectancy in America is 78 years. The life expectancy of Americans in 1900-10 was 48 years.
The high cost of health care is a legitimate concern to many working Americans. It was not a problem in 1900-10 because health care was rudimentary. It did not cost much because it did not provide much in the way of diagnosis or treatment. Health insurance from private companies or the government did not exist.
The same analysis given health care applies to a wide range of other government programs and private entities that now form a social safety net. For example, there were no government rules requiring workplace protections in 1900-10. OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, did not come into existence until 1971.
Likewise, there were no rules prohibiting widespread child labor that characterized the era. Between 1890 and 1910, the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reports that 18 percent of children ages 10-15 were part of the workforce. The jobs were not easy; many dangerous.
Educational opportunities for American children were extremely limited. There were 17 million students in 1900. Only 4 percent were enrolled in grades 9-12 and only 1 percent were enrolled in post-secondary education.
Programs for government sponsored loans to attend college did not exist.
There are additional factors to be considered in evaluating the supposed “greatness” of this era compared to today: the economy, housing, immigration, religious and ethnic bigotry, and crime.
Those factors will be examined in the next commentary in this series.
—————
Samuel Damren is a retired Detroit lawyer and author of “What Justice Looks Like.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
