|
Connecticut Progressives by Mark Williams
This guide contains the following sections. You may move directly to each section by clicking on the section's name, or scroll down through the guide from beginning to end. If you have not done so already, please read the General Introduction for the Teacher which discusses the philosophy behind these teaching units. |
|
Unit Overview If you wish to return to other locations in this site, click below:
This site was created by Mark Williams, a history teacher at The Loomis Chaffee School, Windsor, Connecticut, under a grant from the Connecticut Humanities Council. Some of the materials published here were originally created by Mark Williams as Connecticut Case Studies, under a grant from the Connecticut Humanities Council, and printed by the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company. John F. Sutherland of Manchester Community College, Ronald P. Dufour of Rhode Island College, Thomas P. Weinland of the University of Connecticut, Tracey Wilson of Conard High School, Robert K. Andrian of The Loomis Chaffee School, and State Historian Christopher Collier served as consultants. The Connecticut Humanities Council is the State Committee of the National Endowment for the Humanities. The viewpoints or recommendations expressed in the materials on this site of are not necessarily those of the Council or the Endowment. Teachers are encouraged to print and make copies of these materials for their students.
Unit Overview Description
Students play roles as politicians or reporters at a news conference shortly before the national and state election of 1912 when a third party, the Progressive Party, challenged the Republicans and Democrats. Most of the role players are members and candidates for the newly formed Progressive Party. Students determine what the Progressives advocated, how it differed from the platforms of the other parties, and how well they succeeded in their efforts. In doing so, they learn what progressivism meant at the state level, and how it related to progressive reform on the national level.
State Standards Addressed
St.1: see national standards on historical thinking below St.2: Local and state hist./US and World: see national standards for particular eras below St.3: conflict and conflict resolution; impact of class St.4: initiate questions and hypotheses; decision making; empathyNational Standards Addressed (from the National Standards for History: Basic Edition)
Historical thinking: 1. questioning and hypothesizing, 2. comprehension, 3. analysis and interpretation, 4. research, 5. decision making
U.S. History: Era 7: St. 1 ideas of Progressivism and limitations and alternatives
Activity Types
primary source comprehension and analysis role playing and debate analytical and narrative writing[NOTE: In developing the material for this unit, I am deeply indebted to my colleague and friend, Robert Andrian, Chairman of the History and Social Science Department at Loomis Chaffee School. Bob did the initial research, came up with the idea of the role-play, and wrote the original versions of eleven of the roles. He, in turn, will be quick to acknowledge his debt to Herbert Janick of Western Connecticut State College, whose article "The Mind of the Connecticut Progressive" (1970) was so informative about the leaders of the Progressive Party in this state.]
Return to beginning of this guide.
The progressive movement in the early 20th Century has always been a favorite topic among historians and history teachers. It does, after all, offer a good opportunity to make connections in American history survey courses between various trends and issues. A direct outgrowth of urbanization, the movement serves as a symbol of mammoth social and economic change in the late nineteenth century. With its rhetoric of improvement and justice, it echoes the entire tradition of American reform. More importantly, its ambiguity, ambivalence, and complexity are ideal for demonstrating essential elements of the American character.
Another thing about the progressive movement that makes it so interesting, and so useful in developing a general understanding of American history, is that it was, in fact, not a single movement, but a collection of hundreds of reform efforts on the local, state, and national level. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson are often associated with progressivism. However, some scholars have questioned their commitment to the ideals their rhetoric suggested. Furthermore, at the municipal level, and at the state level, progressivism often had dimensions entirely different from the agendas of progressive leaders in Congress and the White House; and to make matters even more complicated, the movement and its causes and direction varied greatly from state to state and city to city. Some historians have even gone so far as to put progressive reformers into a larger context of all late nineteenth century Americans - a people in search of order and morality in a world out of control. This view has made it easier to explain many of the seeming contradictions and strange alliances of the movement.
Here is where a Connecticut Case Study can be useful. Doubtless students have material in their texts on Roosevelt and Wilson, and the better texts will also discuss progressivism in California and Wisconsin, and, perhaps, in some selected municipalities, to show the wide range of goals, tactics, and results of the movement. A look at Connecticut Progressives will certainly reinforce text reading such as this, demonstrating through "backyard history" how pervasive the ideology of progressivism was in the early 20th Century. In 1912 Connecticut had its own Progressive Party which not only supported Bull Moose candidate Teddy Roosevelt, but also ran a whole ticket for state offices and seats in the legislature, advocating programs and ideals similar to the national platform. At the same time, the Democratic Governor from 1911 to 1915, Simeon E. Baldwin, spearheaded a number of pieces of progressive legislation, and his supporters among urban Democrats (people who were labeled "bosses" by the Progressive Party) proposed even greater government intervention for reform, but directed toward the welfare of workers and immigrants. The efforts of members of the Progressive Party failed miserably, for some of the same reasons that Roosevelt was not elected President (he simply split the Republican vote, they were disorganized, third parties are generally doomed, etc.), but Baldwin's success (as Woodrow Wilson's) shows that the progressive movement had not by-passed Connecticut entirely.
In addition to lending support to an American history program, Connecticut Progressives can also continue to introduce further the conservative nature of Connecticut politics and social structure, even as Connecticut became more urban. As already noted, Governor Baldwin, the winner in both 19 1 0 and 1912, supported a number of progressive ideas himself (see his role sheet). While these were modest achievements, he did manage to get them through the legislature in a slow but sure manner, and get himself reelected, serving as a symbol of the path of progressive reform that Connecticut chose in the end (moderate to minuscule). When all was said and done, there were new ideas on the table, there were reforms enacted, but the state statutes of "the land of steady habits" still fit into one volume.
Connecticut Progressives was designed, then, to show many things about the progressive movement: its contradictions and complexity, the diversity of its adherents, the concern for the deterioration of society and morals as well as its looking forward to an age of scientific government, and the dimension of urban reform being pushed by political "bosses" themselves. The strategy is to take a close look at the leaders of the Progressive Party of 1912, as well as a couple' of their adversaries (including progressives from one of the two major parties). When Herbert Janick wrote about the Progressive leaders in 1970, he found that they generally served as good examples of the Mowry/Hofstadter view of educated, middle class, "elite" reformers concerned about the impact of industrialization and urbanization on traditional values and individual autonomy. In slight contrast to Hofstadter, Janick did not find that any of the party leaders were suffering from loss of status or wealth, but were simply deeply moved by moral convictions, with roots in Puritan heritage, that there were monumental problems in society. These problems, in their view, cried out for government action, the only alternative being the eventual deterioration of society. Janick is perceptive to take note of the seeming paradox involved in the competing ideals of preserving the independence and power of the individual on the one hand, and of enlarging the role of government in human affairs on the other. Furthermore, he emphasizes the distinction between Progressives' aversion to extremes of wealth, and their elitist views on who should lead. They were not egalitarian democrats, but certainly not "robber barons" either. They were not radical reformers with a broad program of social change in mind, but they were ready to consider moving away from the "laissez-faire" ethic of the late 19th Century. Thus they can be viewed in contrast with the "urban liberals" John D. Buenker describes in his work machine politicians who supported the labor union movement, were opposed to "morality legislation," and hopes for government intervention to protect the less fortunate. Buenker suggests that even these "bosses" should be considered "reformers."
Thus, Connecticut in the early 20th Century mirrored not only its heritage of Puritanism, rural yeomanry, and "steady habits," but also the more recent trends of urban and industrial development as well. Like Americans in other regions, Connecticut citizens were not really sure whether they were communalists or individualists. They were suspicious of rapid change, but, at the same time, forced it upon themselves with great enthusiasm. They were restless, and yet looked back, wistfully, to a simpler, more peaceful ' pastoral world (which probably didn't really ever exist). They both loved and feared prosperity. In all this ambiguity they continued to represent the complex tensions that shape American history.
Return to beginning of this guide. While each teacher will want to define his or her own objectives, the following are objectives which would be appropriate for the materials contained in this unit:
1)To learn that Connecticut had its own brand of progressivism in both its Progressive Party and its progressive, yet conservative, governor Simeon Baldwin and his urban liberal supporters.
2)To be introduced to the conservative nature of Connecticut politics and society. Not only should students be able to see that progressivism was "moderate" in this state, but they should also take note of the paradox apparent in attitudes of progressives who were both elitist and democratic. This paradox can be found nationwide among progressives.
3)To understand the Connecticut Progressive Platform, and its implications about attitudes and values of leaders of the progressive movement.
4)To understand the composition of the progressive movement through analysis of the backgrounds of political leaders of the time. Students should be able to see that, while many of the leaders in the progressive movement were from the middle class, businessmen and working-class elements also played an important role in effecting progressive reform.
5)To "see the world through other eyes" by playing a role of a political leader of the progressive era.
6)To develop questioning and debating skills through the medium of a news conference.
7)To hypothesize about the prospects for reformers who challenge seasoned politicians.
8)To appreciate the richness of Connecticut history, both in its own right, and as an example of national trends and developments.
Return to beginning of this guide. The student handouts and rubrics for these assessments are described on the assessment page. You may go directly to this unit's assessment by clicking here.
Students write a political analysis of Connecticut's Progressive Party of 1912, answering the questions Who were the Progressives, What were their goals, What tactics did they employ, How successful were they, and How do we account for their rise and fall?
Return to beginning of this guide. This unit uses mostly primary source documents to enable students to hold a fictional "news conference." You may go to particular documents directly by clicking on their names.
§ "Introduction for the Role Players" (an introduction for the students playing roles, giving them brief introduction to the 1912 election)
§ 16 Role-play sheets including 13 leaders of the Progressive Party, the incumbent Governor and Democratic candidate, an urban, Democratic "boss," and the Chairman of the Republican State Central Committee
§ Selected pages from two issues of The Hartford Courant from 1912
§ "The Progressive Party" (an article from The Yale Review of 1912 in which gubernatorial candidate Herbert Knox Smith outlines his views)
§ Election Statistics from 1908 and 1912 Connecticut returns - two pages of charts.
Return to beginning of this guide.
The set of materials in this package was developed on the assumption that the best way to understand progressivism at the state level in Connecticut was to have the students actually step into the shoes of the political leaders of the day and think about issues as those leaders would have at the time. It was also assumed that students would already have (1) some understanding of urbanization and industrialization (and the problems those processes created), (2) some knowledge of reform efforts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (antitrust, civil service and railroad regulation), and (3) some introduction to the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, and to Woodrow Wilson's "New Freedom" ideas. Since some of this background should, actually, come out in the role-play activity, it is not necessary, that their understanding be very sophisticated.
A good place to start would be to ask the students to identify some of the problems Americans faced at the turn of the 20th century. The list should include poorly planned cities with all of their transportation, sanitation, housing, and political corruption nightmares; monopolies; railroad rate problems; racial segregation; inequality for women; corruption at the state and national level; and inability of farmers, immigrants and laborers to get an equal share of the wealth. Then they could review some of the measures taken to combat some of these problems up through the Taft administration, taking note that, while the 19th Century is famous for its laissez-faire attitude about government, the distinction between the policies of Theodore, Roosevelt and those of other presidents of the period was not always as clear-cut as the myth makes it out to be.
Here would be a good place to take a look at the case of Connecticut. Did the Progressive Era come to Connecticut? What was its effect, if any? How did issues on the state level compare to issues on the national level? The teacher could introduce these issues, or in more ideal situations, the students themselves might come up with the questions.
The introductions for both the role-players and the members of the press (the latter is the introduction to the assessment) explain what the activity is all about and make some suggestions to students about preparation. Everyone should read the assessment introduction - even the role-players can write a news analysis, although each role-player may need to ask someone to take notes for him while he is performing his part. After assignments of roles or positions in the press corps have been made, students should have some time to read the newspaper articles and the Smith article from The Yale Review. Hold back the election results until after the news conference. If class size is small, it is not necessary to assign all of the Progressive roles, although the full contingent helps demonstrate the great diversity within the new party. Also, for everyone but Herbert Knox Smith, reading pages 18-23 of Smith's article should be sufficient.
Once students have prepared by themselves, the Progressive role-players might want to have a chance to meet together to discuss how they will present their views. Then the news conference can begin. Because the roles of Governor Baldwin and J. Henry Roraback require a subtle touch to be convincing (neither was a stereotypical political "hack" no matter how much the Progressives may want to depict them as such), it is a good idea to have a teacher play at least one of these parts (definitely Roraback - it is difficult to portray him in a way that does not provoke immediate student cynicism; and Baldwin needs to come across as "cultured." At some point the two of them and Spellacy need to combine forces to criticize the lack of experience among the Progressives). The role-players should be interviewed as a group by all the reporters, although reporters could target specific individuals for their questions. Role-players should not hesitate to jump in and debate each other, even though a reporter has not called on them' In this fashion, each question and answer can be heard by all reporters, and all involved can have a chance to comment appropriately. Needless to say, at least a full class period should be set aside.
This activity should develop into a good display of differences in attitudes about government (active or sometimes called "paternalistic," vs. laissez-faire or often referred to as "uncaring"), as well as an illustration of the obstacles in the way of reform at that time (not the least of which was the division within the ranks of the Progressive Party itself - also it was just plain difficult to go up against established machine politics and hold on for long). Certainly the press should write a news story or an editorial after the conference, but it is important also to have some sort of wrap-up discussion or writing assignment to discuss the election statistics and meaning of Progressivism in Connecticut.
Baldwin was Connecticut's most successful progressive reformer. Of course, it should not go without notice that he was quite conservative when compared with other Progressives around the country (in fact, until the 1890's he was a Republican). Thus, he shows once again how reluctant Connecticut voters (all male at the time) were to make drastic changes in their world even when great social ills cried out for remedy. Of course, he would not have won had it not been for the divisions within the Republican Party and the attraction of the Progressive platform to defectors. And he would not have been able to get his legislation through without help from machine politicians in his own party and the cooperation of legislators about whom little is known (some original research on Baldwin's supporters in the legislatures of 1911-1914 would make an interesting project for some ambitious student).
Further reflection could take note of the obvious problems the Progressives probably had in appealing to common people. They were an elitist bunch, in spite, of their professed desire to make government more responsive to the needs of ordinary people, and, apparently, many voters either saw through that, or were paid to see through it. Finally, in the wrap-up discussion, the role-players should be asked to summarize their personal backgrounds, if that did not come out in the news conference, so that it is clear that the Progressives represented the middle class, for the most part, but that they each had divergent concerns. Also they should see that political bosses like Spellacy advocated reforms that called for a more active government. They should sum up with some conclusions on Who were the Progressives, What were their goals, What tactics did they employ, How successful were they, and How do we account for their rise and fall? If they can give clear answers to any of those questions they will have outdone many historians!
Baldwin served one more term, but by 1914 the Republicans had managed to pull themselves back together sufficiently to attract voters who were disenchanted with the Wilson administration so far. From that time until the fall of the stock market and the campaign of Democrat Wilbur Cross, the Republican machine and its utility and railroad friends ran the state. In actuality, in spite of Baldwin's virtuous reputation, the Democratic state political machinery was not without its corrupt bosses (Charles Comstock, former Democratic Chairman, was under indictment in 1912). That information might offer some final reflective moments that may border on the cynical. The teacher could always ask the students what they would do in such a seemingly no-win situation.
Return to beginning of this guide. Anderson, Ruth 0. M. From Yankee to American: Connecticut 1865 to 1914. (Vol. 4 of Series in Connecticut History, David M. Roth, ed.). Chester Conn.: The Pequot Press, 1974. This is a good background narrative, discussing many aspects of the period as well as the progressive movement.
Boyer, Paul. Urban Masses and Moral Order 1820-1920. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. A good source for understanding the urban moral impulse, particularly in regard to concern about prostitution and temperance
Buenker, John D. Urban Liberalism and Progressive Reform. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973. See index under Connecticut and Spellacy for references to the state's urban liberal bosses.
Hofstadter, Richard, ed. The Progressive Movement 1900-1915. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc.,1963. The classic thesis on progressivism, which everyone revises in one way or another.
Jackson, Frederick H. Simeon Eben Baldwin: Lawyer, Social Scientist, Statesman. New York: King's Crown Press, 1955. Very good study, even though the author obviously admires Baldwin a great deal.
Janick, Herbert. "The Mind of the Connecticut Progressive." Mid-America, Vol. 52, No. 2 (April, 1970), pp. 83-101. Janick has quite a few articles published on Progressives, but this one relates most directly to the role-play.
Wiebe, Robert. The Search For Order 1877-1920. New York: Hill and Wang, 1966. Wiebe does not like dividing the post Civil War period into eras, nor categorizing people as reformers or conservative. He sees everyone searching for some sort of order in a chaotic environment. His thesis helps to explain many contradictions of the time.
Return to Connecticut History on the Web home page.
