In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

277 11 Progressivism is a generic term American historians apply to the efforts of social reformers around the turn of the last century, but they differ on how precisely to define and use the word. Frustrated by the issue, Peter Filene concluded in 1970 that the term should be discarded. Progressives were a diverse group with different goals and values. Together, Filene observed, they displayed “a puzzling and irreducible incoherence.” In contrast, Richard L. McCormick and Arthur S. Link in Progressivism (1983) willingly incorporated numerous reformers with varying philosophies and agendas under the term. In the article that follows, Michal Belknap argues that United States Supreme Court Justice Mahlon Pitney from New Jersey, whom previous authors had cast as a reactionary “capitalist tool,” was in fact a Progressive. Who were the Progressives? How did they differ from other reformers and from those whose practices they sought to reform? Was there a definable Progressive program or set of objectives? What did these reformers expect to accomplish, and how successful were they? What does Pitney’s career show about Progressivism in the nation as a whole and in New Jersey specifically? In The Age of Reform (1955), Richard Hofstadter argued that the Progressives were middle-class “victims of an upheaval in status” whose “deference and power” were challenged by the rise of big business and organized labor. Progressive reforms, he argued, in effect lashed out at opponents on both ends of the economic spectrum, at least in part to maintain the group’s position in society. Numerous historians have attacked Hofstatder’s premise. Based on profiles of Progressives and of their opponents, David Thelen concluded that there was no appreciable difference in class, occupation, or the tension each experienced from social change. Instead of being a movement restricted to urban middleclass professionals, historians have discovered rural, working-class, and immigrant support for Progressivism. As a middle-class lawyer from an old-stock New Jersey family, Pitney may have fit the old profile of a Progressive, but others with identical credentials were not reformers while some from very different backgrounds were. 278 / Michal R. Belknap Why did Pitney and others become Progressives? A number of developments at the end of the nineteenth century seem to have triggered their reaction. First, the social gospel theology of various religious groups heightened interest in social justice. This “new theology” included a concern for the general welfare and emphasized an active involvement in the community. Second, the depression that began in 1893 led many to conclude that new programs were necessary. Third, “muckraking” journalists had revealed widespread economic and political corruption. Progressives may have felt that preventive medicine was necessary; the way to avoid the spread of socialism and other radical movements was to temper the capitalist system. How did Pitney’s support for Progressive measures emerge? What was there about New Jersey politics at the end of the nineteenth century that led men like him to conclude that reforms were necessary? What power did corporations and the trusts in the state possess? Reflecting their diverse backgrounds, Progressive reformers had a wide variety of objectives. They advocated two methods for dealing with the trusts, either breaking them up or regulating them. They also proposed a series of political reforms, including the direct election of senators, the direct primary, the secret ballot, and laws to eradicate such corrupt practices as buying votes at the polls and in the legislature . Finally, they sought social measures such as minimum wages for women, restrictions on child labor, workmen’s compensation, and pure food and drug laws. Which of these reforms did Pitney support and which did he oppose? Which succeeded and which did not? Based on his attitudes toward labor and corporations, including the railroads, was he a “conservative” or “liberal” Progressive? What, if anything, does Pitney’s position suggest about the nature of the Progressive movement in New Jersey? Belknap’s essay on Pitney provokes two other questions about Progressives. The first considers their tolerance, or lack thereof, for differences and dissent. Some historians have described the Progressives as middle-class moralists who wanted to impose their standards on society as a whole and who, in the process, displayed a certain condescension toward the working classes, hostility toward immigrants, fear of radicals, and refusal to accept dissent, particularly during wartime. To what extent did Pitney exhibit these attitudes? What standards did Pitney and other judges in his time use to decide what was acceptable wartime...

Share