# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get access to files anywhere through secure cloud storage and file backup for your photos, videos, files and more with Google Drive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The period of US history from the 1890s to the 1920s is usually referred to as the Progressive Era, an era of intense social and political reform aimed at making progress toward a better society.

Progressive Era reformers sought to harness the power of the federal government to eliminate unethical and unfair business practices, reduce corruption, and counteract the negative social effects of industrialization.

During the Progressive Era, protections for workers and consumers were strengthened, and women finally achieved the right to vote.

The problems of industrialization

The ideology and politics of progressivism

The worldview of Progressive reformers was based on certain key assumptions. The first was that human nature could be improved through the enlightened application of regulations, incentives, and punishments. The second key assumption was that the power of the federal government could be harnessed to improve the individual and transform society. These two assumptions were not shared by political conservatives, who tended to believe that human nature was unchanging, and that the federal government should remain limited in size and scope.

Some of the most famous Progressive reformers were Jane Addams, who founded Hull House in Chicago to help immigrants adapt to life in the United States; Ida Tarbell, a "muckraker" who exposed the corrupt business practices of Standard Oil and became an early pioneer of investigative journalism; and Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, who both expanded the power of the federal government to impose regulations on private industry and implement protections for workers, consumers, and the natural environment.

Progressive reformers successfully influenced the passage of much substantive legislation, including several amendments to the US Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment established a federal income tax, the Seventeenth Amendment allowed for the direct election of Senators, the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited sales of alcohol, and the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote.

The dark side of progressivism

Though Progressive reformers achieved many noteworthy goals during this period, they also promoted discriminatory policies and espoused intolerant ideas. The Wilson administration, for instance, despite its embrace of modernity and progress, pursued a racial agenda that culminated in the segregation of the federal government. The years of Wilson's presidency (1913-1921) witnessed a revival of the Ku Klux Klan and a viciously racist backlash against the economic and political gains of African Americans in the post-Reconstruction period.

In line with their view of human nature as capable of being engineered and manipulated, many Progressive reformers advocated selective breeding, or eugenics. Eugenics was considered "the science of better breeding" and aimed to improve the genetic quality of the human population through policies that would encourage the more "desirable" elements of society to have more children while preventing "undesirables" from reproducing. Eugenics was based on a racial and class hierarchy that placed white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants at the top. Lower classes, ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, the mentally ill, and the developmentally disabled all occupied lower rungs on this hierarchy. In 1907, the United States became the first country to pass a compulsory sterilization law.

The genocidal policies of Nazi Germany ultimately discredited the "science" of eugenics, but not before over 60,000 American men and women were forcibly sterilized to prevent them from having children.

What do you think?

How would you describe the Progressive worldview? Do you agree with the ideological assumptions of progressivism?

What were the most impressive achievements of Progressive reformers?

Overall, were the effects of progressivism more harmful or beneficial to American society?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Progressive Era (Progressive movement) (article) | Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Progressive Era to New Era, 1900-1929 | U.S. History Primary Source Timeline | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore important topics and moments in U.S. history through historical primary sources from the Library of Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline: The Progressive Era to the New Era, 1900–1929 | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Timeline: The Progressive Era to the New Era, 1900–1929 | |

# data[].attributes.body
The Progressive Era: Reforming America for a Better Tomorrow

The Progressive Era, spanning the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was a period of transformative change in the United States. Spurred by the rapid industrialization and urbanization of the Gilded Age, reformers sought to address pressing social, political, and economic challenges. This era brought a wave of progressive reforms that reshaped the nation's institutions and policies, laying the foundation for modern America.

Voting and Electoral Reforms: Empowering the People

Progressives aimed to make democracy more inclusive and efficient. Women's suffrage was a cornerstone of this movement, culminating in the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which granted women the right to vote nationwide. Efforts to dismantle political corruption led to the direct election of senators through the 17th Amendment, as well as the introduction of tools like initiatives, referenda, and recalls, which gave citizens a direct voice in governance. These reforms aimed to wrest power from political machines and restore it to the people.

Environmental Protection and Conservation: Preserving the Nation’s Resources

President Theodore Roosevelt emerged as a champion of the nascent conservation movement, inspired by naturalists like John Muir. Under Roosevelt’s leadership, national parks, forests, and monuments were established, and the Newlands Reclamation Act (1902) funded irrigation projects in the arid West. Initiatives such as the Inland Waterways Commission and the National Conservation Commission sought to manage resources sustainably, ensuring future generations could enjoy the nation's natural bounty.

Prison and Criminal Justice Reform: Rehabilitation Over Punishment

In the realm of criminal justice, progressives focused on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. Probation and parole systems allowed offenders to reintegrate into society under supervision, while indeterminate sentencing aimed to tailor incarceration to individual reform progress. However, harsh practices like chain gangs, particularly in the South, faced mounting criticism for their cruelty and racial bias.

Mental Health Reform: A New Understanding of Care

The Progressive Era saw evolving attitudes toward mental health, marked by cycles of reform. Early efforts like the Moral Treatment Era emphasized humane care in peaceful asylums, but overcrowding undermined these ideals. The Mental Hygiene Movement of the early 20th century sought to integrate science into treatment, while the post-WWII Community Mental Health Movement prioritized outpatient care and deinstitutionalization. Despite these strides, challenges like inadequate community support persisted, leaving many patients underserved.

Education Reform: Cultivating a Democratic Society

Education became a vehicle for social change during this era, driven by thinkers like John Dewey, who advocated experiential learning and critical thinking. Progressive education emphasized preparing students to tackle societal issues and foster democratic participation. Federal initiatives, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965), addressed funding disparities, while landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) advanced racial equality in schools.

Gender Equality and Women’s Rights: Pioneering Change

The Progressive Era marked significant advances for women, from suffrage to workplace protections. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was instrumental in both temperance and the suffrage movement. Black women leaders like Ida B. Wells-Barnett tackled intersectional issues, fighting racial and gender discrimination. These efforts culminated in the 18th Amendment, establishing prohibition, and the 19th Amendment, granting women the vote.

Labor Rights and Child Labor: Protecting the Vulnerable

Exploitation of workers, especially children, was a key concern. Photographers like Lewis Hine documented harrowing conditions in factories and mines, galvanizing public support for reform. Progressive legislation introduced workplace safety standards, limited working hours, and banned child labor. Unions like the American Federation of Labor (AFL) fought for fair wages and improved conditions, empowering workers across industries.

Food and Drug Safety: Ensuring Consumer Protection

Public outrage over unsafe products led to landmark legislation like the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act (both 1906). Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle exposed the horrors of the meatpacking industry, spurring these changes. Reformers argued that government oversight was essential to protect consumers from exploitation and harm, marking the beginnings of modern regulatory frameworks.

Sanitation and Public Health: Building Cleaner Cities

Urbanization brought public health challenges, and progressives tackled them head-on. Settlement houses, led by figures like Jane Addams, provided vital services to immigrant communities. Cities introduced garbage collection, sewage systems, and housing inspections to combat overcrowding and disease. Campaigns against prostitution and substance abuse further aimed to improve urban life and public morality.

Conclusion

The Progressive Era was a time of immense social, political, and economic transformation. From empowering marginalized communities to conserving natural resources and championing public health, progressives reshaped America’s future. While not all efforts succeeded, their legacy continues to influence contemporary reforms and debates, reminding us of the enduring power of collective action in addressing society’s challenges.

# data[].attributes.body
Progressivism in Education: A Path Toward Justice and Equality

The Progressive Era reshaped education, shifting its purpose from merely maintaining the status quo to fostering societal improvement. Progressive educators saw schools as tools for social justice, not just assimilation, promoting ideas that continue to influence modern education.

John Dewey and Progressive Education

John Dewey, considered the father of progressive education, championed an approach to learning that emphasized growth and adaptability. In his seminal work, Democracy and Education (1944), Dewey described two types of learning:

Conservative Learning: Focused on transmitting established cultural norms and maintaining societal structures.

Progressive Learning: Centered on evolving knowledge, fostering creativity, and preparing individuals to address new challenges.

Dewey believed education should empower individuals to think critically, solve problems collaboratively, and contribute to democratic society. His vision framed schools as spaces where students and teachers could actively question the status quo and seek ways to improve society. While his ideas were often met with resistance from conservative factions, they laid the groundwork for education as a tool for democratic participation.

# data[].attributes.body
Critical Theory and Social Reconstruction

In 1923, critical theory emerged from the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research in Germany. It questioned the naturalness of existing political and economic systems, emphasizing the importance of challenging power structures that perpetuate inequality. The movement rejected absolute truths, advocating for the constant reevaluation of societal norms.

By the 1930s, critical theory found a home in American education, particularly in programs at Columbia University’s Teachers College. This movement, aligned with social reconstructionism, encouraged teachers to:

Examine how schools reinforce social hierarchies.

Use education as a means of critique and transformation.
Educators became agents of change, fostering reflection and action (praxis) to address societal injustices. This progressive view challenged the idea of education as mere knowledge transmission, advocating instead for its role in driving societal improvement.

# data[].attributes.body
Landmark Shifts in Education Policy

The decades following World War II brought significant changes to education, driven by a growing focus on equality and opportunity.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954):

This Supreme Court decision declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The Court’s unanimous ruling recognized the harmful impact of segregation on African American students, declaring, "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

Federal Funding and Support:

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965): This landmark law, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty, provided unprecedented federal funding to schools in low-income districts, aiming to reduce inequities perpetuated by property-tax-based funding.

National Defense Education Act (1958): Passed in response to the launch of Sputnik, this act expanded federal funding for math, science, and foreign language education, emphasizing the role of education in national security.

Despite these advances, inequities persisted, exacerbated by “white flight” to suburban areas, which drained resources from urban schools and deepened segregation.

Ongoing Debates in Education

Education remains a battleground for differing views about its purpose:

1. Traditional View: Schools should transmit cultural norms, values, and knowledge to preserve social order.

2. Progressive View: Education should critique existing structures and prepare individuals to improve society.

As these perspectives continue to clash, the legacy of the Progressive Era reminds us of the transformative potential of education when it prioritizes justice, equality, and democratic ideals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Child Labor Reform in the Progressive Era

# data[].attributes.body
(Progressive Era: approx. 1890s-1920)

Settlement House Movement � White, upper-middle class, college-educated women who wanted to make a difference in society created and worked at settlement houses, which were like community centers in inner-city, immigrant neighborhoods.� They wanted to improve the lives of slum-dwellers by providing education and child care, teaching English and other basic skills, helping the immigrants get better jobs and housing, and uplifting them culturally (art & music appreciation.) Part of the mission of the settlement house workers was Americanization of immigrants � to teach the immigrants WASP middle-class values. The most famous settlement house was Hull House in Chicago, led by Jane Addams.� Black middle-class women ran separate settlement houses for fellow African-Americans � illustrating the racial segregation of the Progressive movement.

Housing and Sanitation Reforms � Progressive reformers urged cities to pass legislation which set standards for housing (to try to eliminate the worst tenements) and such sanitation matters as garbage pick-up and sewage systems.� The legislation would require the hiring of inspectors to see that these standards were met.� Many of the inspectors first hired by city governments under these reforms were women, such as Jane Addams.

Beautification Campaigns � Some reformers wanted to improve the urban environment by making it more pleasant and attractive. This, like the housing reforms, was based on their idea that an improved environment meant improved people. (This idea was a rejection of Social Darwinism.)� Some of their reforms included parks, civic centers, and better transportation systems.� Some historians argue that these were superficial reforms enacted to please the middle-class inhabitants or tourists of cities, but did not really address the dire problems of the masses who lived in the slums.

Anti-Prostitution Campaign � Progressives were responsible for the Mann Act (1910), which� prohibited interstate transportation of women for �immoral purposes.�� By 1915, nearly every state had outlawed prostitution.

Woman suffrage � This was the movement to secure for women the right to vote. Many different kinds of women (race, class, and ethnicity) joined the campaign to win the federal amendment, but the movement was mainly led by WASP middle and upper-class women.

Factory Safety Regulations, Limits on Working Hours (mainly for women), Workers� Compensation for injuries, Restrictions on Women and Child Labor - �While labor unions sought these measures by organizing workers to bargain with their employers, a tense alliance between some middle-class and working-class reformers also sought these reforms by passing laws (government intervention instead of collective bargaining.)� These reformers were successful in convincing most states to pass factory inspection laws, workers comp, and minimum age of employment laws.� Some states passed laws limiting the number of hours women (but not men) could work.� These regulations were usually difficult to enforce; many employers found ways to evade them.�

Another problem was that some working-class families wanted their women and children to work in order to make as much money for the family as possible (in order to survive) and did not appreciate reforms that restricted women and child labor.� Many middle-class reformers did not understand this reaction.� Many middle-class reformers believed that the working class should adopt WASP middle-class values, which included the value that women and children should not work for wages.�

Moreover, even though they wanted to improve conditions for workers, many middle-class reformers were suspicious of (or hostile to) labor unions because they felt threatened by the idea of working-class autonomy, or working-class solidarity.� They were much more comfortable with the idea of the middle class generously bestowing labor reforms upon the downtrodden workers, which is a paternalistic attitude.� Working-class reformers, including socialists, recognized this condescending attitude and were uneasy about working with middle-class reformers to ahiceve labor legislation, though they often swallowed hard and did anyway. There were, however, some examples of fairly harmonious organizations that brought working-class and middle-class reformers together to help workers.

Temperance, then Prohibition � Progressive reformers focused their fight against the consumption of alcohol on the saloons.� Saloons were a major center of immigrant culture, for they were not only bars but important social gathering places and where most political machines operated out of.� The Progressives� war on saloons was motivated by a sincere concern for the real dangers of alcohol consumption and its effect on families, particularly on innocent women and children, and also by a less compassionate anti-immigrant sentiment. �Overall, Prohibition aimed at decreasing, if not stopping, drinking by the working class, especially working-class immigrants. Prohibition also had an economic motivation: employers wanted sober, efficient workers.

Kill the Political Machine � Progressives viewed the immigrants� political machines as corrupt and inefficient.� Also, middle-class WASP reformers felt threatened by the power these machines afforded working-class immigrants.� Progressives wanted to take the �politics� (the wheeling & dealing, the personal favors) out of government to make it more scientific and efficient and remove power from the hands of immigrants.� They advocated replacing elected officials with appointed experts, such as trained city managers.

Initiative, Referendum, Recall, and Popular Election of Senators (17th Amendment) � (look these up in your textbook if you don�t know what they are)These reforms aimed to bring about broader political participation � to return power to �the people� and eliminated corrupt and concentrated power.� Some historians argue that middle-class WASP reformers pushed these reforms because they saw themselves, not working-class immigrants or African Americans, as the �people� who would gain power.� Some middle-class reformers assumed that the working class would not have the time, intelligence, or other resources to participate actively in the political process.

Meat Inspection Act, and the Pure Food & Drug Act � Before the passage of these acts, there was no government agency to make sure that food, drugs, or any other kind of product was safe. The credo �let the buyer beware� had dominated.� But when Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, which publicized the disgusting methods of meat-packing plants, the public became outraged.� Reformers argued that in a complex, technological age dominated by big business, consumers needed impartial government experts to regulate manufacturers, tell consumers what was safe, and eliminate corrupt business practices.

�Anti-Trust Regulation �- Progressives sought more fairness in the capitalist economy and thought that if businesses became too big and powerful (trusts or monopolies), then they could exploit consumers and workers and drive out small businesses. �Progressives believed that the government needed to intervene to regulate the size and power of corporations. Examples of anti-trust laws and government agencies to regulate �trusts� are the Interstate Commerce Commission (and the Hepburn Act), the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and The Federal Trade Commission.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There was great interest during the Progressive Era (1900-1917) in investigation and amelioration of hazardous working conditions. President Theodore Roosevelt had championed the conservation movement and broadened its scope to include the saving of human life. It was but a short step from there to protecting the lives and limbs of industrial workers. Through settlement houses and other urban social work, reformers aided workers and their families and entreated employers to eliminate dangerous working conditions and other abuses. Muckraking journalists and others gave nation‑wide publicity to accidents and unsafe conditions.

From 1902 to 1907 The Factory Inspector, unofficial journal of the International Association of Factory Inspectors, regularly published accounts gathered by state labor bureaus of industrial accidents. The steel industry produced some of the most violent accidents that this journal reported. At a steel mill in Butler, Pennsylvania, a heavy pot of hot metal spilled molten steel onto wet sand, causing a huge explosion which destroyed part of the plant. Streams of hot metal poured down on the workmen, engulfing and literally cooking some of them. Four men died and 30 more were injured. The explosion shook buildings in the town and caused panic among the populace. Thousands turned out to watch the huge fire that ensued. Two employees at a steel plant in Youngstown, Ohio were sent to clean out the dust underneath the blast furnaces. Suddenly there was a slippage of tons of molten fuel and ore inside the furnace, causing large amounts of very hot dust to fall on them. One of the men was completely buried in it and died in great agony. The other escaped with severe burns.

Less spectacular but more frequent were the individual tragedies reported in The Factory Inspector resulting from unprotected machinery in a variety of industries. A machinist got his arm caught in a rapidly moving belt. It was jerked from its socket, and he fell 50 feet to the floor. His fellow workers, aghast at the man's shrieks, ran in panic from the shop. A young boy working in a coffin plant was decapitated and had both arms and both legs torn off when he was caught on shafting rotating at 300 revolutions per minute. A worker in a brick‑making factory was caught in a belt and had most of his skin torn off. A sawmill worker fell onto a large, unguarded circular saw and was split in two. When a worker got caught in the large flywheel of the main steam power plant of a navy yard, his arms and legs were torn off and the lifeless trunk was hurled against a wall 50 feet away. Perhaps the most horrifying accident reported in the journal was described as follows:

"In plain sight of a hundred fellow‑workmen, Martin Stoffel was cut into small pieces at the Philadelphia Caramel Works ... He was dragged into the machinery and his head severed... A second later both legs were cut off. Then one arm after the other fell into the lesser wheels below, both being cut into many parts. Before the machinery could be stopped, Stoffel had been literally chopped to pieces."

Dramatically underscoring the frequency of industrial accidents, The Factory Inspector once reported on "the peculiar coincidence of two men of the same name meeting their doom in the same manner at the same hour" in different cities. John Minick of Escanaba, Michigan, and a namesake in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, both millwrights, were killed when their clothing became entangled in rotating shafting. No one witnessed either accident, but the bodies were found later.

The steel industry had come under intense public scrutiny with the formation of the U.S. Steel Corp. and several muckrakers also turned their attention to this industry. In Chicago, home of U.S. Steel's huge South Works, bad working conditions were widespread. Writer William B. Hard came to investigate in 1907 and attracted nation‑wide attention with his article "Making Steel and Killing Men."

In this fair‑minded but tough expose, Hard showed why he felt that "steel is war" in the huge mill, in which he found an almost "diabolical hypnotism exercised ... by (its) overwhelming majesty." Hard estimated that each year 1,200 men were killed or injured out of a work force of about 10,000. He described an accident in which a man was roasted alive by molten slag that spilled from a giant ladle when a hook from an overhead crane carrying it slipped. The ladle lacked proper lugs and the hook had been attached precariously to the rim. Hard argued that U.S. Steel had ample ability to reduce accidents but lacked strong incentive to do so. When a man was killed on the job, there was only one chance in five that the company would ever have to pay compensation to his survivors.

Vivid first‑hand accounts of conditions similar to, if somewhat later than, those Hard encountered are found in Charles Rumford Walker's Steel: The Diary of a Furnace Worker. He wrote it around 1920 after he had graduated from college and worked for a while in a steel mill. Walker and a foreign‑born co‑worker named Adolf went to the top of a blast furnace. Adolf asked him if he smelled the gas (which contained carbon monoxide) that issued from the furnace. "'You stay li'l bit, pretty soon you drunk .... You stay li'l bit more,' he continued, his grin broadening, 'pretty soon you dead.'" The stoves used to heat the air blast in the furnaces had a brick checker work on the top of the furnace to retain the heat. This checker work filled up with flue dust periodically and had to be cleaned out. The dust was so thick one could hardly see, and the heat so intense that one could work only three minutes at a time. When Walker went up there he reported that "my lungs were like paper on fire." There was an open shaft next to the checker work that went all the way to the bottom of the furnace. Walker was told a man had fallen down that shaft to his death.

Walker became sharply aware of the difficulties faced by the non‑English speaking immigrant workers in the mills. It struck him, after being bawled out "picturesquely for not knowing where something was that I had never heard of, that this was what every immigrant Hunky endured." Once, when the pit boss told a Slavic worker to do a particular job, the man did not understand, and the pit boss said, "Lord! but these Hunkies are dumb." Walker was convinced that most of the accidents, misunderstandings and wasted motion that took place would disappear if there were "a common language, of mind as well as tongue."

Immigrant steelworkers were generally willing to put up with the long hours, hard, work, and bad conditions as long as they had steady employment. They were usually stuck with the dirtiest, hottest, most hazardous jobs. Steel making, dangerous enough for experienced workers, was even more so for these unseasoned peasants. From 1906 to 1910, the accident rates for immigrants at the South Works were double those for English‑speakers. Each year, about one‑fourth of the immigrant workers were killed or injured on the job.

In 1907‑1908 the Russell Sage Foundation sponsored a massive survey of living and working conditions in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, focusing on workers in the steel industry, though it included mining and railroading. Titled the "Pittsburgh Survey," it was well publicized and revealed an ugly side of industrializing America. One of the many publications that grew out of it was Crystal Eastman's Work Accidents and the Law, published in 1910.

Eastman based her book on data gathered on all industrial deaths in the Pittsburgh area for one year, on accidents for three months, over a thousand cases in all. Investigators tracked down data on the nature of each accident - the cause, who was at fault, economic effects on families, and so on. Mines and railroads were included, but steel mills constituted the largest manufacturing sector. Eastman hoped to find the answers to two questions: what was the true distribution of blame for accidents between workers and employers; and, who bore the brunt of the economic burden of work accidents.

The answer to the second question was fairly clear. Of the 526 deaths in the year of the Pittsburgh Survey, 235 involved survivors. Of those, 53 percent received $100 or less from the employer. Of the 509 workmen injured in a three month period, employers paid hospital costs for 84 percent of them, but only 37 percent received any benefits beyond that, according to Eastman. "For our present purpose this fact is significant enough: In over one-half of the deaths and injuries ... the employers assumed absolutely no share of the inevitable income loss." Further underlining the shifting of the burden of lost income from employers to victims, Eastman wrote:

"In work accidents we have a peculiar kind of disaster, by which... only wage earners are affected, and which falls upon them in addition to all the disasters that are the common lot. A special cloud always threatens the home of the worker in dangerous trades .... (I)t is not just that those whose lot falls in this part of the work should endure not only all the physical torture that comes with injury, but also almost the entire economic loss which inevitably follows it."

Eastman's answer to the question of blame for accidents differed from the prevailing views. At that time, employers commonly believed that around 95 percent of all accidents were due to workers' carelessness. Eastman challenged this conviction with figures showing that, of the 377 accidents covered in the Survey for which fault could be determined, 113, or 30 percent, of them were solely the employers' fault. Further, at most, only 44 percent could be even partially blamed on the victim or fellow workmen.

Shifting the statistical focus somewhat, Eastman made a strong case that even those accidents due to "carelessness" were not very clear cut. Of the 132 deaths which were found to be the victim's fault, 47 involved very young or inexperienced workers, or those with physical conditions that made them vulnerable. That left 85 experienced, able‑bodied victims of "carelessness":

"For the heedless ones, no defense is made. For the inattentive we maintain that human powers of attention, universally limited, are in their case further limited by the conditions under which the work is done - long hours, heat, noise, intense speed. For the reckless ones we maintain that natural inclination is in their case encouraged and inevitably increased by an occupation involving constant risk.

Regarding the workman who was reckless, not on impulse but in a deliberate effort to cut corners, Eastman wrote in their defense:

"If a hundred times a day a man is required to take necessary risks, it is not in reason to expect him to stop there and never take an unnecessary risk. Extreme caution is as unprofessional among the men in dangerous trades as fear would be in a soldier."

Three interrelated reforms developed in the Progressive era in response to the industrial safety problems that Crystal Eastman, William B. Hard, The Factory Inspector and others helped publicize - one of them private, and two public. Advances in technology and plant construction continued to improve conditions, but also many companies began to look at accidents as a problem to be solved, not simply an acceptable cost of doing business, and voluntarily instituted their own safety and health programs. Workers' compensation, already established in Europe, was widely adopted in this country, in large part as a preventive measure. Many states adopted administrative rule making, another European idea, to get around the difficulty they had in maintaining up‑to‑date factory laws in the face of changing industrial conditions. Many states established industrial commissions which administered one or both of these programs. At times, industry assisted the public program. These, in turn, gave a powerful boost to the voluntary private movement to reduce accidents.

Before the Pittsburgh Survey, U.S. Steel and its subsidiaries initiated in‑plant safety programs. Several factors contributed to this development. The enormous publicity generated by its formation made U.S. Steel particularly sensitive to public opinion in a period of growing criticism of accidents and deaths in the mills. Centralized records of accidents throughout the corporation made the company more aware of the exact dimensions of the safety problems in its mills. A reduction in intensity of competition in the industry freed up more company resources for workers' welfare measures such as safety. Explosive growth in unions in the early 1900s added pressures to improve conditions.

Several subsidiaries of U.S. Steel had safety programs of their own even before the creation of the mother company in 1901. Safety quickly found a leading place in the corporate agenda. In 1906, company safety officials began meeting annually at U.S. Steel headquarters in New York. This led to the creation in 1908 of a company‑wide Central Committee of Safety with a strong mandate from company president Elbridge Gary to bring about improved conditions and bring down accident rates. The committee had the power to set safety rules for the plants, perform inspections, and advise plant managers of new safety devices and methods. Local plant safety committees carried these duties out. Backing up this committee, U.S. Steel spent about $750,000 a year on safety improvements. It sought to include the latest safety features in all new plant and equipment and encouraged suppliers of machinery to keep it informed of any new devices or safety features that came along.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There was great interest during the Progressive Era (1900-1917) in investigation and amelioration of hazardous working conditions. President Theodore Roosevelt had championed the conservation movement and broadened its scope to include the saving of human life. It was but a short step from there to protecting the lives and limbs of industrial workers.

# data[].attributes.body
The labor movement in the United States traces its roots back to the late colonial period when a free wage-labor market began to develop in artisan trades. Early workers recognized the need to protect their interests and advocate for fair treatment, a vision that shaped the evolution of organized labor and its continuing influence today.

Early Beginnings and Growth

First Strikes and Unions:
In 1768, New York journeymen tailors staged the earliest recorded strike, protesting wage reductions. This marked the beginning of organized efforts to improve labor conditions. In 1794, the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers in Philadelphia became the first sustained trade union in the U.S., uniting skilled workers to address shared concerns.

Emergence of Craft Unions:
By the early 19th century, local craft unions were forming across cities, publishing "price lists" to standardize wages and pushing for shorter workdays. In 1827, the Mechanics’ Union of Trade Associations in Philadelphia united craft unions within a city. The creation of the International Typographical Union in 1852 marked the first national union, uniting local unions across the U.S. and Canada.

Skilled vs. Industrial Workers:
Initially, the labor movement was dominated by skilled workers, as industrial workers were largely excluded. The focus on protecting trades meant that broader industrial unionism would emerge only later.

The Vision of Social Justice

Labor movements were not just about wages and working hours—they were tied to broader ideas of social equality and justice:

Ideals of the Labor Movement:
Influenced by the Ricardian labor theory of value and republican ideals from the American Revolution, early labor advocates sought a just society that celebrated honest work and fostered equality.

Challenges of Industrial Capitalism:
The economic changes brought by industrial capitalism created a sharp divide between the rich and poor. Labor leaders believed this inequality contradicted their vision of a fair and virtuous society.

Key Organizations in the 19th Century

National Labor Union (1866):
The first national labor organization aimed to unify workers and push for reforms like an eight-hour workday.

Knights of Labor (1880s):
This inclusive group sought broad reforms, promoting equal rights and cooperation among workers. It reached its peak in the 1880s but struggled with internal divisions and opposition from industrial leaders.

American Federation of Labor (AFL, 1886):
Formed in response to the Knights of Labor’s decline, the AFL focused on “pure and simple unionism,” emphasizing immediate job-related goals like better wages and working conditions. Led by Samuel Gompers, the AFL represented skilled workers but struggled with issues of inclusion.

Child Labor and Exposés

The exploitation of child labor was a dark chapter in the labor movement’s history. Photographer Lewis Hine’s haunting images captured the plight of children working long hours in dangerous conditions:

Grim Realities:

Children as young as eight worked in mills, canneries, and coal mines, often earning mere pennies for grueling labor.

In textile mills, small boys scaled machinery to fix threads, while "breaker boys" in coal mines sorted through hazardous materials.

Impact of Hine’s Work:
Hine’s photographs, showing children with injuries and exhausted expressions, shocked the nation and fueled calls for reform, leading to stricter child labor laws.

Discrimination in the Labor Movement

Despite its ideals of unity, the labor movement faced significant challenges with discrimination:

Racial and Gender Divisions:
Many unions excluded African Americans, women, and immigrants from membership. By 1902, only 3% of union members were Black, and most were segregated in Jim Crow locals. Similarly, women and Eastern European immigrants often faced exclusion.

Reversal of Progress:
Although the AFL initially resisted racial and gender segregation, it later sanctioned discriminatory practices, such as chartering whites-only unions like the International Association of Machinists in 1895.

Legacy and Lessons

The labor movement laid the groundwork for workers’ rights in America, highlighting both its successes and limitations. While it made strides in securing better wages, hours, and conditions, it struggled with inclusivity and adapting to the broader industrial workforce. Today, the movement’s history serves as both an inspiration and a reminder of the ongoing fight for equity in labor rights.

4o

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Origins of The Labor Movement

The origins of the labor movement lay in the formative years of the American nation, when a free wage-labor market emerged in the artisan trades late in the colonial period. The earliest recorded strike occurred in 1768 when New York journeymen tailors protested a wage reduction. The formation of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers (shoemakers) in Philadelphia in 1794 marks the beginning of sustained trade union organization among American workers.
WATCH: The Labor Movement
From that time on, local craft unions proliferated in the cities, publishing lists of "prices" for their work, defending their trades against diluted and cheap labor and, increasingly, demanding a shorter workday in the face of the Industrial Revolution. Thus a job-conscious orientation was quick to emerge, and in its wake there followed the key structural elements characterizing American trade unionism. First, with the formation in 1827 of the Mechanics' Union of Trade Associations in Philadelphia, central labor bodies began uniting craft unions within a single city, and then, with the creation of the International Typographical Union in 1852, national unions began bringing together local unions of the same trade from across the United States and Canada (hence the frequent union designation "international"). Although the factory system was springing up during these years, industrial workers played little part in the early trade union development. In the 19th century, trade unionism was mainly a movement of skilled workers.

Did you know? In 2009, 12 percent of American workers belonged to unions.

Early Labor Unions

The early labor movement was, however, inspired by more than the immediate job interest of its craft members. It harbored a conception of the just society, deriving from the Ricardian labor theory of value and from the republican ideals of the American Revolution, which fostered social equality, celebrated honest labor, and relied on an independent, virtuous citizenship. The transforming economic changes of industrial capitalism ran counter to labor's vision. The result, as early labor leaders saw it, was to raise up "two distinct classes, the rich and the poor." Beginning with the workingmen's parties of the 1830s, the advocates of equal rights mounted a series of reform efforts that spanned the nineteenth century. Most notable were the National Labor Union, launched in 1866, and the Knights of Labor, which reached its zenith in the mid-1880s.

On their face, these reform movements might have seemed at odds with trade unionism, aiming as they did at the cooperative commonwealth rather than a higher wage, appealing broadly to all "producers" rather than strictly to wageworkers, and eschewing the trade union reliance on the strike and boycott. But contemporaries saw no contradiction: trade unionism tended to the workers' immediate needs, labor reform to their higher hopes. The two were held to be strands of a single movement, rooted in a common working-class constituency and to some degree sharing a common leadership. But equally important, they were strands that had to be kept operationally separate and functionally distinct.
PHOTOS: These Appalling Images Exposed Child Labor in America
American Federation of Labor

During the 1880s, that division fatally eroded. Despite its labor reform rhetoric, the Knights of Labor attracted large numbers of workers hoping to improve their immediate conditions. As the Knights carried on strikes and organized along industrial lines, the threatened national trade unions demanded that the group confine itself to its professed labor reform purposes. When it refused, they joined in December 1886 to form the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The new federation marked a break with the past, for it denied to labor reform any further role in the struggles of American workers. In part, the assertion of trade union supremacy stemmed from an undeniable reality. As industrialism matured, labor reform lost its meaning-hence the confusion and ultimate failure of the Knights of Labor. Marxism taught Samuel Gompers and his fellow socialists that trade unionism was the indispensable instrument for preparing the working class for revolution. The founders of theAFL translated this notion into the principle of "pure and simple" unionism: only by self-organization along occupational lines and by a concentration on job-conscious goals would the worker be "furnished with the weapons which shall secure his industrial emancipation."

That class formulation necessarily defined trade unionism as the movement of the entire working class. The AFL asserted as a formal policy that it represented all workers, irrespective of skill, race, religion, nationality or gender. But the national unions that had created the AFL in fact comprised only the skilled trades. Almost at once, therefore, the trade union movement encountered a dilemma: How to square ideological aspirations against contrary institutional realities?

Discrimination in The Labor Movement

As sweeping technological change began to undermine the craft system of production, some national unions did move toward an industrial structure, most notably in coal mining and the garment trades. But most craft unions either refused or, as in iron and steel and in meat-packing, failed to organize the less skilled. And since skill lines tended to conform to racial, ethnic and gender divisions, the trade union movement took on a racist and sexist coloration as well. For a short period, the AFL resisted that tendency. But in 1895, unable to launch an interracial machinists' union of its own, the Federation reversed an earlier principled decision and chartered the whites-only International Association of Machinists. Formally or informally, the color bar thereafter spread throughout the trade union movement. In 1902, blacks made up scarcely 3 percent of total membership, most of them segregated in Jim Crow locals. In the case of women and eastern European immigrants, a similar devolution occurred-welcomed as equals in theory, excluded or segregated in practice. (Only the fate of Asian workers was unproblematic; their rights had never been asserted by the AFLin the first place.)

Samuel Gompers

Gompers justified the subordination of principle to organizational reality on the constitutional grounds of "trade autonomy," by which each national union was assured the right to regulate its own internal affairs. But the organizational dynamism of the labor movement was in fact located in the national unions. Only as they experienced inner change might the labor movement expand beyond the narrow limits-roughly 10 percent of the labor force-at which it stabilized before World War I.

In the political realm, the founding doctrine of pure-and-simple unionism meant an arm's-length relationship to the state and the least possible entanglement in partisan politics. A total separation had, of course, never been seriously contemplated; some objectives, such as immigration restriction, could be achieved only through state action, and the predecessor to the AFL, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (1881), had in fact been created to serve as labor's lobbying arm in Washington. Partly because of the lure of progressive labor legislation, even more in response to increasingly damaging court attacks on the trade unions, political activity quickened after 1900. With the enunciation of Labor's Bill of Grievances (1906), the AFL laid down a challenge to the major parties. Henceforth it would campaign for its friends and seek the defeat of its enemies.

This nonpartisan entry into electoral politics, paradoxically, undercut the left-wing advocates of an independent working-class politics. That question had been repeatedly debated within theAFL, first in 1890 over Socialist Labor party representation, then in 1893-1894 over an alliance with the Populist Party and after 1901 over affiliation with the Socialist party of America. Although Gompers prevailed each time, he never found it easy. Now, as labor's leverage with the major parties began to pay off, Gompers had an effective answer to his critics on the left: the labor movement could not afford to waste its political capital on socialist parties or independent politics. When that nonpartisan strategy failed, as it did in the reaction following World War I, an independent political strategy took hold, first through the robust campaigning of the Conference for Progressive Political Action in 1922, and in 1924 through labor's endorsement of Robert La Follette on the Progressive ticket. By then, however, the Republican administration was moderating its hard line, evident especially in Herbert Hoover's efforts to resolve the simmering crises in mining and on the railroads. In response, the trade unions abandoned the Progressive party, retreated to nonpartisanship, and, as their power waned, lapsed into inactivity.

The Labor Movement and The Great Depression
WATCH: Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal
It took the Great Depression to knock the labor movement off dead center. The discontent of industrial workers, combined with New Deal collective bargaining legislation, at last brought the great mass production industries within striking distance. When the craft unions stymied the ALF's organizing efforts, John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers and his followers broke away in 1935 and formed the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO), which crucially aided the emerging unions in auto, rubber, steel and other basic industries. In 1938 the CIO was formally established as the Congress of Industrial Organizations. By the end of World War II, more than 12 million workers belonged to unions and collective bargaining had taken hold throughout the industrial economy.

In politics, its enhanced power led the union movement not to a new departure but to a variant on the policy of nonpartisanship. As far back as the Progressive Era, organized labor had been drifting toward the Democratic party, partly because of the latter's greater programmatic appeal, perhaps even more because of its ethno-cultural basis of support within an increasingly "new" immigrant working class. With the coming of Roosevelt's New Deal, this incipient alliance solidified, and from 1936 onward the Democratic Party could count on-and came to rely on-the campaigning resources of the labor movement.

Collective Bargaining

That this alliance partook of the nonpartisan logic of Gompers's authorship-too much was at stake for organized labor to waste its political capital on third parties-became clear in the unsettled period of the early cold war. Not only did theCIO oppose the Progressive party of 1948, but it expelled the left-wing unions that broke ranks and supported Henry Wallace for the presidency that year.

The formation of the AFL-CIOin 1955 visibly testified to the powerful continuities persisting through the age of industrial unionism. Above all, the central purpose remained what it had always been-to advance the economic and job interests of the union membership. Collective bargaining performed impressively after World War II, more than tripling weekly earnings in manufacturing between 1945 and 1970, gaining for union workers an unprecedented measure of security against old age, illness and unemployment, and, through contractual protections, greatly strengthening their right to fair treatment at the workplace. But if the benefits were greater and if they went to more people, the basic job-conscious thrust remained intact. Organized labor was still a sectional movement, covering at most only a third of America's wage earners and inaccessible to those cut off in the low-wage secondary labor market.

Women and Minorities in the Labor Movement

Nothing better captures the uneasy amalgam of old and new in the postwar labor movement than the treatment of minorities and women who flocked in, initially from the mass production industries, but after 1960 from the public and service sectors as well. Labor's historic commitment to racial and gender equality was thereby much strengthened, but not to the point of challenging the status quo within the labor movement itself. Thus the leadership structure remained largely closed to minorities-as did the skilled jobs that were historically the preserve of white male workers-notoriously so in the construction trades but in the industrial unions as well. Yet the AFL-CIOplayed a crucial role in the battle for civil rights legislation in 1964-1965. That this legislation might be directed against discriminatory trade union practices was anticipated (and quietly welcomed) by the more progressive labor leaders. But more significant was the meaning they found in championing this kind of reform: the chance to act on the broad ideals of the labor movement. And, so motivated, they deployed labor's power with great effect in the achievement of John F. Kennedy's and Lyndon B. Johnson 's domestic programs during the 1960s.

Decline in Unions

This was ultimately economic, not political power, however, and as organized labor's grip on the industrial sector began to weaken, so did its political capability. From the early 1970s onward, new competitive forces swept through the heavily unionized industries, set off by deregulation in communications and transportation, by industrial restructuring and by an unprecedented onslaught of foreign goods. As oligopolistic and regulated market structures broke down, nonunion competition spurted, concession bargaining became widespread and plant closings decimated union memberships. The once-celebrated National Labor Relations Act increasingly hamstrung the labor movement; an all-out reform campaign to get the law amended failed in 1978. And with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, there came to power an anti-union administration the likes of which had not been seen since the Harding era.

Between 1975 and 1985, union membership fell by 5 million. In manufacturing, the unionized portion of the labor force dropped below 25 percent, while mining and construction, once labor's flagship industries, were decimated. Only in the public sector did the unions hold their own. By the end of the 1980s, less than 17 percent of American workers were organized, half the proportion of the early 1950s.

The labor movement has never been swift to change. But if the new high-tech and service sectors seemed beyond its reach in 1989, so did the mass production industries in 1929. There is a silver lining: Compared to the old AFL, organized labor is today much more diverse and broadly based: In 2018, of the 14.7 million wage and salary workers who were part of a union (compared to 17.7 million in 1983), 25 percent are women and 28 percent are Black.

Sources

TED: The Economics Daily. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The origins of the labor movement lay in the formative years of the American nation, when a free wage-labor market emerged in the artisan trades late in the colonial period. The earliest recorded strike occurred in 1768 when New York journeymen tailors protested a wage reduction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
19th Century Reforms: Crash Course US History #15

# data[].attributes.body
Environmentalism and Conservation in the Progressive Era

In the mid to late 19th century, natural resources were heavily exploited, especially in the West. Land speculators and developers took over large tracts of forests and grazing land. Acreage important to waterpower was seized by private concerns. Mining companies practiced improper and wasteful mining practices. Assuming a seemingly inexhaustible supply of natural resources, Americans developed a "tradition of waste."

Alarmed by the public's attitude toward natural resources as well as the exploitation of natural resources for private gain, conservationists called for federal supervision of the nation's resources and the preservation of those resources for future generations. In President Theodore Roosevelt, the conservationists found a sympathetic ear and man of action. Conservation of the nation's resources, putting an end to wasteful uses of raw materials, and the reclamation of large areas of neglected land have been identified as some of the major achievements of the Roosevelt era.

President Roosevelt's concern for the environment was influenced by American naturalists, such as John Muir, and by his own political appointees, including Gifford Pinchot, Chief of Forestry. Working in concert with many individuals and organizations, the Roosevelt administration was responsible for the following: the Newlands Act of 1902, which funded irrigation projects from the proceeds of the sale of federal lands in the West; the appointment of the Inland Waterways Commission in 1907 to study the relation of rivers, soil, forest, waterpower development, and water transportation; and the National Conservation Commission of 1909, which was charged with drawing up long-range plans for preserving national resources. Along with a vocal group of conservationists, the Roosevelt administration created an environmental conservation movement whose words and actions continue to be heard and felt throughout the nation today.

# data[].attributes.body
https://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu/environmentalism/exhibits/show/main_exhibit/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exhibit · Give Earth a Chance: Environmental Activism in Michigan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Intersectional History of Environmentalism

# data[].attributes.body
The industrial revolution wasn’t very revolutionary for women. While new technologies revolutionized the public sphere, the domestic sphere remained inefficient. Women increasingly took jobs outside the home and life became a bit faster, but law had not yet caught up with societal change. Children were laboring in factories, alcoholism was rampant, public education was underfunded and limited, immigrants needed support, and more.  Women led the way to reform society in what today is known as the Progressive Era.

Forewarning, this chapter will discuss lynchings and racial violence.

Between about 1890 and 1914, the United States experienced a period of reform that has earned the label “Progressive.” Women were active leaders of reform groups, guaranteeing the safety of the food supply, supporting crusades for temperance,  the elimination of child labor, and the improvement of working conditions in factories. Women’s writing, organizing, and protesting efforts were not always successful, but they did raise the consciousness of the American public to  many of the negative consequences of rapid industrialization.

# data[].attributes.body
Women Protesting Jim Crow Laws, Britannica

Considering the time, the Progressive Era was incredibly intersectional with women reformers working on many issues from industrialization to race relations.

Jim Crow:

​During the Progressive Era, race relations stagnated. Racial violence, riots, and neglect of Black Americans prevailed. Black women played a vital role in combating racism and organizing for change. Jim Crow laws severely oppressed Black women, impacting education, employment, accommodations, and voting rights. They resisted these injustices through activism.

Segregated schools for Black students were often underfunded and provided inferior resources and facilities compared to those available to white students. Black women, along with other community members, worked tirelessly to establish and maintain independent schools, known as "colored schools," to provide better educational opportunities for Black children.

Jim Crow laws enforced racial segregation in public spaces, including restaurants, theaters, and transportation. Black women faced humiliation, violence, and denial of basic services and accommodations. In response, Black women organized boycotts, sit-ins, and protests, advocating for equal access and challenging the discriminatory policies.

Jim Crow laws aimed to suppress the political power of Black women and men by implementing poll taxes, literacy tests, and other voter suppression tactics. Despite these obstacles, Black women played a crucial role in mobilizing and organizing voter registration campaigns, advocating for suffrage, and fighting for equal representation.

Prominent Black women activists such as Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Mary Church Terrell, and many others led and participated in resistance movements against Jim Crow laws. They used various strategies such as grassroots organizing, civil disobedience, public speaking, journalism, and legal challenges to expose the injustices and fight for civil rights and social equality.

In 1884, Wells-Barnett sued a railroad company in Memphis, Tennessee for forcing her into a segregated car, even though she had a valid first-class ticket. She won her case at the local level but lost on appeal. This case was among the first of many in which African-Americans sought relief for discrimination in the courts. Wells-Barnett also organized a boycott of the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893 for the World’s Fair’s negative portrayal of people of color.

# data[].attributes.body
Temperance:

Gender dynamics hit every progressive cause including the crusade for temperance. The image of the male factory worker drinking away his weekly salary while his wife and children starved motivated Progressive Era women to pick up the cause for abstinence from alcohol where their grandmothers had left off. In the 19th century, temperance, not suffrage, was the largest, most politically powerful women’s movement.

The struggle for a ban on alcohol was a mass women-led movement. Alcohol was associated with poverty and violence inflicted on wives by their inebriated husbands. But at the beginning of the twentieth century, state and local legal systems gave husbands almost total  authority and control over their wives, up to and including inflicting serious physical damage, casting a woman out of the home, and taking full custody of children.

The Women's Crusade was a grassroots movement that emerged in Ohio in the early 1870s. It was a significant precursor to the larger temperance movement. Groups of women organized and conducted prayer meetings, hymn singing, and peaceful demonstrations outside saloons and alcohol-selling establishments. They would enter these establishments, often singing hymns and praying for the owners and patrons to give up alcohol. The Women's Crusade was remarkable for its emphasis on women's moral authority and their ability to effect change through peaceful and persuasive means.​

However, despite its initial momentum and the fervor of its participants, the Women's Crusade ultimately failed due to the formidable and well funded resistance posed by the alcohol industry.

The largest temperance organization was the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, or WCTU, which had chapters all over the country. The first president of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was Annie Wittenmyer. She served as the organization's president from its founding in 1874 until 1879. However, it is important to note that while Annie Wittenmyer was the first president, she did not hold this position for an extended period. She was retrained in her approach and failed to see the way in which various women’s organizations could work together to the same end, in particular suffrage. She viewed the suffrage movement as separate from the temperance movement and did not prioritize it.

​Frances Willard succeeded her and served as the president of the WCTU from 1879 until her death in 1898. Under her leadership, the organization became the largest women's organization of its time, with thousands of members across the United States and around the world. Willard's organizational skills, strategic thinking, and oratory skills helped the WCTU grow in size and influence. Under Willard’s leadership, the WCTU officially endorsed suffrage in 1881, and many WCTU members actively campaigned for women's voting rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Reproductive Justice:

The Progressive Era was also a crucial period in the struggle for reproductive justice. State laws enacted during this time sought to control women's reproductive choices and limit access to contraception and abortion. These laws reflected the prevailing cultural and ideological shifts of the era, but they also sparked resistance and advocacy, laying the groundwork for future battles for reproductive rights. Examining this historical context reminds us of the importance of reproductive autonomy and the ongoing struggle for reproductive justice in contemporary society.

State laws enacted in the late 19th century often aimed to restrict women's reproductive autonomy, reflecting prevailing societal values and the influence of religious and moral beliefs. These laws varied across states but generally criminalized the dissemination and use of contraceptives and established restrictions on abortion. The Comstock Act of 1873, at the federal level, prohibited the distribution of obscene materials, including contraceptive devices and information, effectively limiting women's access to birth control methods. The Comstock Act was prompted primarily by Anthony Comstock, an influential social reformer and anti-vice crusader of the late 19th century. Comstock was a devout Christian and a special agent of the United States Postal Service, tasked with enforcing laws related to obscenity and vice.

The Comstock Act faced significant criticism from advocates of women's rights, reproductive health, and civil liberties. They argued that the act violated freedom of speech, limited access to vital healthcare information, and disproportionately affected women's rights and reproductive autonomy. Moreover, the laws disproportionately affected low-income women and women of color, as they often faced limited resources and greater difficulties in accessing reproductive healthcare.

# data[].attributes.body
Women's Suffrage in the Progressive Era

Immediately after the Civil War, Susan B. Anthony, a strong and outspoken advocate of women's rights, demanded that the Fifteenth Amendment include a guarantee of the vote for women as well as for African-American males. In 1869, Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton founded the National Woman Suffrage Association. Later that year, Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, and others formed the American Woman Suffrage Association. However, not until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1919 did women throughout the nation gain the right to vote.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, women and women's organizations not only worked to gain the right to vote, they also worked for broad-based economic and political equality and for social reforms. Between 1880 and 1910, the number of women employed in the United States increased from 2.6 million to 7.8 million. Although women began to be employed in business and industry, the majority of better paying positions continued to go to men. At the turn of the century, 60 percent of all working women were employed as domestic servants. In the area of politics, women gained the right to control their earnings, own property, and, in the case of divorce, take custody of their children. By 1896, women had gained the right to vote in four states (Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah). Women and women's organizations also worked on behalf of many social and reform issues. By the beginning of the new century, women's clubs in towns and cities across the nation were working to promote suffrage, better schools, the regulation of child labor, women in unions, and liquor prohibition.

Not all women believed in equality for the sexes. Women who upheld traditional gender roles argued that politics were improper for women. Some even insisted that voting might cause some women to "grow beards." The challenge to traditional roles represented by the struggle for political, economic, and social equality was as threatening to some women as it was to most men.

# data[].attributes.body
Progressivism and Black America

Although the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had enfranchised freedmen in 1869, southern whites now determined to take away their right to vote. The new state constitutional provisions and legislation seemed racially neutral on their face that is, they applied to all men eligible to vote but lawmakers designed and implemented them in ways that excluded black voters, sometimes along with poor whites. Mississippi had ratified a new constitution in 1890 mandating that by 1896, a voter must to “be able to read any section of the Constitution, or be able to understand the same . . . or give a reasonable interpretation thereof.” It also required a poll tax of $2.00, a considerable sum for poor farmers. Because the state constitution required every male Mississippian to re-register to vote, the white registrars who administered the literacy test failed even literate black voters.

Louisiana followed Mississippi and passed a disenfranchising law that included a literacy test, requiring the voter to write an application in the registrar’s presence. But it exempted from the test those who owned more than $300 in property or anyone who was the “son or grandson” of someone who could vote prior to January 1, 1867. Because the Fifteenth Amendment was passed in February 1869, this law excluded anyone who had previously been enslaved and his or her descendants. The “grandfather clause,” as it was called, blatantly empowered officials to violate the Fifteenth Amendment, but North Carolina followed Louisiana by enacting a similar constitutional amendment in 1902. By 1908, the entire South had passed laws that were used to disenfranchise black voters. The few African Americans who tried to vote often encountered armed whites who prevented them from doing so

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 14th Amendment, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, is a cornerstone of equality and due process in the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, born out of the Civil War and Lincoln's vision, overturned the Dred Scott decision, granting African Americans the same civil rights as whites. Created by Aspen Institute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 14th Amendment (video) | Reconstruction | Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
southern officials began to legislate new segregation laws that required black people to ride in separate train cars, banned them from street cars, prohibited them from buying homes in white neighborhoods, and excluded them from certain hotels and restaurants and other private accommodations. They called this new system Jim Crow, named for a white minstrel who performed in blackface before the Civil War. A New Orleans resident named Homer Plessy, who was of one-eighth African heritage, challenged the constitutionality of the laws all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. He expected to win, but the court ruled segregation legal in 1896, as long as it was “separate but equal.” Accommodations for African Americans were rarely equal, and strict segregation began.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Black Codes

The roots of Jim Crow laws began as early as 1865, immediately following the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States.

Black codes were strict local and state laws that detailed when, where and how formerly enslaved people could work, and for how much compensation. The codes appeared throughout the South as a legal way to put Black citizens into indentured servitude, to take voting rights away, to control where they lived and how they traveled and to seize children for labor purposes.

The legal system was stacked against Black citizens, with former Confederate soldiers working as police and judges, making it difficult for African Americans to win court cases and ensuring they were subject to Black codes.

These codes worked in conjunction with labor camps for the incarcerated, where prisoners were treated as enslaved people. Black offenders typically received longer sentences than their white equals, and because of the grueling work, often did not live out their entire sentence.

Ku Klux Klan

During the Reconstruction era, local governments, as well as the national Democratic Party and President Andrew Johnson, thwarted efforts to help Black Americans move forward.

Violence was on the rise, making danger a regular aspect of African American life. Black schools were vandalized and destroyed, and bands of violent white people attacked, tortured and lynched Black citizens in the night. Families were attacked and forced off their land all across the South.

The most ruthless organization of the Jim Crow era, the Ku Klux Klan, was born in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, as a private club for Confederate veterans.

The KKK grew into a secret society terrorizing Black communities and seeping through white Southern culture, with members at the highest levels of government and in the lowest echelons of criminal back alleys.

Jim Crow Laws Expand

At the start of the 1880s, big cities in the South were not wholly beholden to Jim Crow laws and Black Americans found more freedom in them.

This led to substantial Black populations moving to the cities and, as the decade progressed, white city dwellers demanded more laws to limit opportunities for African Americans.

Jim Crow laws soon spread around the country with even more force than previously. Public parks were forbidden for African Americans to enter, and theaters and restaurants were segregated.

Segregated waiting rooms in bus and train stations were required, as well as water fountains, restrooms, building entrances, elevators, cemeteries, even amusement-park cashier windows.

Laws forbade African Americans from living in white neighborhoods. Segregation was enforced for public pools, phone booths, hospitals, asylums, jails and residential homes for the elderly and handicapped.

Some states required separate textbooks for Black and white students. New Orleans mandated the segregation of prostitutes according to race. In Atlanta, African Americans in court were given a different Bible from white people to swear on. Marriage and cohabitation between white and Black people was strictly forbidden in most Southern states.

It was not uncommon to see signs posted at town and city limits warning African Americans that they were not welcome there.

Ida B. Wells

As oppressive as the Jim Crow era was, it was also a time when many African Americans around the country stepped forward into leadership roles to vigorously oppose the laws.

Memphis teacher Ida B. Wells became a prominent activist against Jim Crow laws after refusing to leave a first-class train car designated for white people only. A conductor forcibly removed her and she successfully sued the railroad, though that decision was later reversed by a higher court.

Angry at the injustice, Wells devoted herself to fighting Jim Crow laws. Her vehicle for dissent was newspaper writing: In 1889 she became co-owner of the Memphis Free Speech and Headlight and used her position to take on school segregation and sexual harassment.

Wells traveled throughout the South to publicize her work and advocated for the arming of Black citizens. Wells also investigated lynchings and wrote about her findings.

A mob destroyed her newspaper and threatened her with death, forcing her to move to the North, where she continued her efforts against Jim Crow laws and lynching.

Charlotte Hawkins Brown

Charlotte Hawkins Brown was a North Carolina-born, Massachusetts-raised Black woman who returned to her birthplace at the age of 17, in 1901, to work as a teacher for the American Missionary Association.

After funding was withdrawn for that school, Brown began fundraising to start her own school, named the Palmer Memorial Institute.

Brown became the first Black woman to create a Black school in North Carolina and through her education work became a fierce and vocal opponent of Jim Crow laws.

Isaiah Montgomery

Not everyone battled for equal rights within white society-some chose a separatist approach.

Convinced by Jim Crow laws that Black and white people could not live peaceably together, formerly enslaved Isaiah Montgomery created the African American-only town of Mound Bayou, Mississippi, in 1887.

Montgomery recruited other former enslaved people to settle in the wilderness with him, clearing the land and forging a settlement that included several schools, an Andrew Carnegie-funded library, a hospital, three cotton gins, a bank and a sawmill. Mound Bayou still exists today, and is still almost 100 percent Black.

Jim Crow Laws in the 20th Century

As the 20th century progressed, Jim Crow laws flourished within an oppressive society marked by violence.

Following World War I, the NAACP noted that lynchings had become so prevalent that it sent investigator Walter White to the South. White had lighter skin and could infiltrate white hate groups.

As lynchings increased, so did race riots, with at least 25 across the United States over several months in 1919, a period sometimes referred to as " Red Summer." In retaliation, white authorities charged Black communities with conspiring to conquer white America.

With Jim Crow dominating the landscape, education increasingly under attack and few opportunities for Black college graduates, the Great Migration of the 1920s saw a significant migration of educated Black people out of the South, spurred on by publications like The Chicago Defender, which encouraged Black Americans to move north.

Read by millions of Southern Black people, white people attempted to ban the newspaper and threatened violence against any caught reading or distributing it.

The poverty of the Great Depression only deepened resentment, with a rise in lynchings, and after World War II, even Black veterans returning home met with segregation and violence.

Jim Crow in the North

The North was not immune to Jim Crow-like laws. Some states required Black people to own property before they could vote, schools and neighborhoods were segregated, and businesses displayed "Whites Only" signs.

In Ohio, segregationist Allen Granbery Thurman ran for governor in 1867 promising to bar Black citizens from voting. After he narrowly lost that political race, Thurman was appointed to the U.S. Senate, where he fought to dissolve Reconstruction-era reforms benefiting African Americans.

After World War II, suburban developments in the North and South were created with legal covenants that did not allow Black families, and Black people often found it difficult or impossible to obtain mortgages for homes in certain "red-lined" neighborhoods.

When Did Jim Crow Laws End?

The post-World War II era saw an increase in civil rights activities in the African American community, with a focus on ensuring that Black citizens were able to vote. This ushered in the civil rights movement, resulting in the removal of Jim Crow laws.

In 1948 President Harry Truman ordered integration in the military, and in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that educational segregation was unconstitutional, bringing to an end the era of "separate-but-equal" education.

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which legally ended the segregation that had been institutionalized by Jim Crow laws.

And in 1965, the Voting Rights Act halted efforts to keep minorities from voting. The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which ended discrimination in renting and selling homes, followed.

Jim Crow laws were technically off the books, though that has not always guaranteed full integration or adherence to anti-racism laws throughout the United States. Several recent pieces of legislation-such as House Bill 1020 in Mississippi, which aimed to disenfranchise the majority-Black capital city of Jackson by creating a new judicial district overseen by white leaders-are often compared to Jim Crow laws.

Sources

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Richard Wormser.
Segregated America. Smithsonian Institute.
Jim Crow Laws. National Park Service.
"Exploiting Black Labor After the Abolition of Slavery." The Conversation.
"Hundreds of black Americans were killed during 'Red Summer.' A century later, still ignored." Associated Press/USA Today.
"Here's What's Become Of A Historic All-Black Town In The Mississippi Delta." NPR.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jim Crow Laws: Definition, Facts & Timeline | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jim Crow laws were state and local statutes that legalized racial segregation. Enacted after the Civil War, the laws denied equal opportunity to Black citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
Moral Treatment Era (early 19th century)

The first major social reform movement to address the care of individuals with mental illness began in the United States during the 19th century. Humanitarian efforts to improve the lives of people deemed less fortunate permeated a variety of social reform movements at the time (Rothman, 1971; Morrissey and Goldman, 1984). For example, the Second Great Awakening (1780–1830), a sweeping Evangelical Protestant revival movement emphasized charitable works and community volunteerism as a path to salvation (Taubes, 1998). Rather than embracing predestinarianism, the movement supported the view that people could be changed through alterations to the physical and social environment. Concurrently, advances in public health and sanitation conceptualized illness as an indicator of poor social and environmental conditions, which further reinforced the idea that improving one’s surroundings would lead to a path of both physical and moral health (Institute of Medicine, 1988). The philosophy of Moral Treatment for mental illness emerged within this social and historical context.

Prevailing conceptualizations of mental illness at the beginning of the 19th century elevated highly stigmatizing views, likening mental conditions to demonic possession or moral deviance, and “mad” people were believed to have no abilities to “reason” and needed to be “tamed” (Penney and Stastny, 2008). Until the 1820s, commonly used “therapies” for serious mental illness included bleeding, cathartics, ice water immersion, restraints, and beatings (Taubes, 1998). The Moral Treatment Movement developed in stark response to these dismal “interventions” by using medical and psychological frameworks to view mental illness as a physical condition that altered behavior through physical changes in the brain (Taubes, 1998). In the mid-19th century, the terminology for categorizing severe mental disorders included conditions we would now recognize as psychotic disorders, including delirium or dementia, as well as mania and toxic psychoses. Some are acute and others are non-remitting. The term “psychosis” was recorded as early as 1845 (Herbermann, 1913). Rather than viewing those with mental illness as “bad” or “immoral,” the Moral Treatment movement promoted the use of psychosocial interventions and viewed mental illness as curable if patients received compassionate treatment in peaceful settings. Work by European reformers, such as Phillipe Pinel and William Tuke promoted humane treatment for those with mental illness and provided a foundation for the development of public asylums in the United States. Asylums were originally envisioned as places where people with serious mental illness could seek rest, refuge, and safety.

“Moral Treatment” offered at asylums aimed to cure “insanity” by sequestering affected individuals into idyllic settings with occupational treatment, recreational activities, and nurturing providers (Morrissey and Goldman, 1984). Privately funded asylums in Pennsylvania and Connecticut implemented Moral Treatment in the late 1810s and early 1820s, and eventually state-run asylums implemented moral treatment for individuals identified as “mentally ill” who previously resided in jails and local almshouses. Social reformer Dorothea Dix championed rights for individuals with mental illness and advocated for expanding public asylums across the United States. By 1890, every state had at least one publicly supported asylum. However, as construction of asylums expanded, Moral Treatment did not meet its purported goals.

The implementation of Moral Treatment required several factors: (1) small caseloads to foster close therapeutic relationships between staff members and patients, (2) recent onset of illness for admitted patients, and (3) sufficient public funding and political support for facility construction and operation. Societal and cultural forces prevented these implementation factors from materializing, and as such, the quality of care in public asylums eventually declined (Morrissey and Goldman, 1984). The advent of industrialization in the 1840s and 1850s and the large influx of immigrants to the United States from impoverished backgrounds led to rapid increases in urban populations and an increasing demand for psychiatric care. Public officials responded by calling for the construction of larger institutional facilities. Over time, the majority of patients admitted to asylums were disproportionately from lower income groups, including immigrants and incarcerated individuals with chronic mental illnesses, what we would now consider psychosis and chronic alcoholism (Warner, 1994). Stigma and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and gender influenced who was sent to public asylums and how mental illness diagnoses were assigned (Penney and Stastny, 2008). As the patient population increased, the quality of care declined, and public Moral Treatment asylums morphed from small therapeutic hospitals to large, overcrowded institutions that all but abandoned the goal of treatment in favor of containment.

During the 1850s, stratification between publicly and privately funded institutions emerged and remained deeply embedded. Patients from lower-income and ethnoracialized backgrounds were relegated to publicly funded institutions, whose primary goals supported long-term custodial care for involuntarily admitted patients with what we would now consider psychotic disorders and alcohol use disorders. Privately funded asylums provided quieter, less crowded treatment settings for wealthier and primarily voluntary patients. Over time, publicly funded asylums served to isolate large numbers of patients in custodial care away from the public for the lowest possible cost. Asylums routinely featured overcrowded, deteriorating facilities, staff shortages, and highly restrictive and abusive practices to maintain order. Case studies document how many individuals in state funded asylums remained institutionalized for the rest of their lives without any hope of effective treatment (Penney and Stastny, 2008).

# data[].attributes.body
In the 1870s, reformers criticized American psychiatry for the over-crowded conditions of state asylums, the overuse of physical restraints, and the lack innovation in treatment. Documented accounts of conditions within state run asylums published in the early 20th century shocked the public. In his autobiography published in 1908, former patient Clifford Beers described his battle with psychosis and his repeated committals to multiple mental institutions, where abusive treatment by staff members caused additional trauma (Beers, 1908). His work impacted public perceptions of mental hospitals and helped spur reform movements (Parry, 2010).

In 1908, psychiatrist Adolf Meyer conceptualized “mental hygiene” as the biological or pathological origins for mental illness and linked psychiatry with neurology, biology, and physiology. Meyer supported early treatment as a strategy to reduce the severity and reoccurrence of mental illness. In 1909, Clifford Beers, Adolf Meyer and psychologist William James formed the National Committee for Mental Hygiene endorsing mental illness as a treatable condition amenable to early intervention and prevention. Mental hygienists called for the development of “psychopathic hospitals and clinics,” acute care institutions connected to universities and research organizations designed to combine the goals of Moral Treatment with science. The construction of psychopathic hospitals proliferated across the United States; however, they were unable to address chronic mental illness or change the state of mental health care more generally.

To rectify the poor quality of care for severe mental disorders in state and local settings, including local almshouses and state mental hospitals (formerly known as state asylums), state legislators passed a series of State Care Acts, beginning with the New York State Care Act in 1890. These laws required states to assume financial responsibility for the care of individuals considered mentally ill in state mental hospitals rather than in settings operated by local municipalities and counties. The legislation provided a centralized state-run regulatory structure for the administration of asylums and solidified psychiatry as the main form of care for individuals with severe mental illness.

Over time, the original goal of providing treatment in state hospitals diminished, and efforts were placed on admitting older adults experiencing senility for custodial care. Before 1900, aged senile patients and those with chronic mental illness were routinely sent to local almshouses for care. However, local communities saw financial benefits to shifting the burden of caring for patients from town and county almshouses and workhouses to state mental hospitals, thus transferring financial responsibility for their care to the state. As a result of this policy, the patient population in state mental hospitals radically changed from serving primarily acute cases to also serving senile patients, those with chronic mental illness, and other diseases that required long-term or permanent custodial care, such as tertiary syphilis. Yet, state mental hospitals did not provide specific treatments tailored to psychiatric conditions. This transfer of patients from one institutional setting to another resulted in a 240 percent increase in the number of patients admitted to state mental hospitals from 1903 to the mid-20th century (Grob, 1983). The state mental hospitals again became largely custodial care facilities meant to contain individuals who were poor and chronically ill. Despite the promise of forging new scientific advancements with social reform, the psychopathic hospitals did not live up to their early promise

# data[].attributes.body
The decades following World War II helped introduce the Community Mental Health movement and a network of community mental health centers (CMHCs) throughout the United States (Geller, 2000). World War II itself helped shift public preferences away from institutional care (Crocq and Crocq, 2000). The idea of sending World War II Veterans with post-traumatic stress and combat fatigue to institutions removed from the community did not sit well with either the general public or elected representatives (Grob and Goldman, 2006). Additionally, psychiatrists participating in the military experienced success in providing brief, effective psychosocial treatment close to the front, rather than in distant hospitals, which promoted interest in prevention and the treatment of mental illness within the community. Work by psychiatrist Eric Lindemann in the 1940s showed that patient recovery improved with connections to local supports and provided a framework for community-based care that would soon become the focal point of treatment during this reform movement (Rosenfeld, 2018).

During the war, when federal authorities assigned conscientious objectors to work in state psychiatric hospitals, many accumulated disturbing accounts of unacceptable conditions, including overcrowding, under-staffing, decaying physical infrastructure, and abuse (Taylor, 2009). Journalist Albert Maisel published a scathing exposé in Life magazine of life inside two state hospitals that recounted appalling living conditions for patients (Maisel, 1946). The article and accompanying photographs of patients lying unattended on the ground, bound with heavy restraints, and relegated to overcrowded rooms shocked Americans and succeeded in showcasing the hopelessness, abuse, and neglect that many institutionalized patients experienced.

The period following World War II saw the expansion of federal legislation to reshape the mental health system. With the establishment of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 1949, policy makers and academic psychiatrists shifted the conceptualization of mental health to a public health concern, one that could include a broad range of mild to severe illnesses with treatments that providers could deliver in outpatient and inpatient settings. Policy makers envisioned treatment distributed across communities in small outpatient settings, rather than centralized in large state-run institutions (Brodwin, 2013), which further advanced the acceptance of a community psychiatry approach.

Other events contributed to the view that large state mental hospitals were obsolete and inadequate as facilities for treatment (Brodwin, 2013). In 1955, chlorpromazine, marketed as Thorazine became the first antipsychotic approved for wide-scale use in the United States, quickly followed by other similar drugs (dopamine antagonists). Up until this point, most treatments for schizophrenia included prefrontal lobotomies, electro-convulsive therapy, insulin coma therapy, and broader psychosocial approaches, like psychodynamic therapy, group therapy for parents, and milieu therapy (Bennet, 1943; Freudenberg, 1947; Fromm-Reichman, 1948; Kahn and Prestwood, 1954; Rioch and Stanton, 1953). With the introduction of antipsychotics, invasive techniques implemented in institutions, such as lobotomies were phased out, and rehabilitative interventions—designed to prepare patients for life in the community—were actively phased in, and increasingly implemented in community-settings (Wallace et al., 1980). The introduction of antipsychotic medications and other community-based interventions further supported the argument to empty inpatient wards, relieve people from long-term hospitalization, and “reintegrate” people back into the community through deinstitutionalization.

Under growing pressure—both from the general public and the increasingly unsustainable costs of the state hospital system—Congress passed the Mental Health Study Act in 1955, funding a “nationwide analysis and reevaluation of the human and economic problems of mental health.” Experts assembled under the auspices of the Act commissioned a series of studies culminating in the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health’s seminal report Action for Mental Health (Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, 1961). The report declared that modern treatment for mental illness should enable patients to maintain lives away from the “debilitating effects of institutionalization” with aftercare and rehabilitation as essential parts of service delivery.

John F. Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Act (CMHA) into law in 1963, which called for the creation of a national network of 1500 community mental health centers (CMHCs) ostensibly with the goal of providing community-based services for individuals discharged from state hospitals. The promise of reducing the number of patients in state mental hospitals and saving money promoted a policy of deinstitutionalization. Seminal in the shift it set in motion, historians often see the CMHA as a failure in implementation. Only 700 of the planned 1500 centers were built, and CMHCs that were constructed focused on prevention and expanded treatment for those with less disabling conditions, rather than those with severe mental illness. These facilities stood in contrast to state mental hospitals, where the overwhelming majority of inpatients had severe conditions. Echoing the calls by proponents of the psychopathic hospitals of the Mental Hygiene movement, leadership in CMHCs considered it their charge to prevent chronic illness rather than focus on treating those already in need of long-term care. The CMHC’s focus on less chronic cases broadened the opportunity to serve a whole new population of those previously untreated for mental health concerns.

Between 1955 and 1980, the population in state mental hospitals reduced by more than 75% (Geller, 2000). Within a short timeframe, hospitals discharged hundreds of thousands of patients with mental illness, and CMHCs were wholly unprepared and at times unwilling to care for patients with chronic illness. CMHC clinicians admitted and treated many more individuals with conditions other than psychosis; as such, people with psychosis in CMHCs represented a declining percentage of the total compared to what was seen in prior years. The impression was that CMHCs were neglecting individuals with psychotic disorders, although the numbers and rate per 100,000 for those with schizophrenia remained relatively stable (Goldman et al., 1980). Caseloads expanded to serve others with less disabling, but still distressing, conditions.

# data[].attributes.body
The Progressive Era

From the close of the 1800s through the first decades of the 1900s, the United States underwent a period of widespread social reform known as the Progressive Era. Reformers addressed numerous aspects of American life. They worked to expand democracy by giving women the right to vote, attempting to help the poor, and making public education better and more accessible. Many significant reform movements of the era came about because of the rapid changes in the United States during the late 1800s. Millions of new immigrants had arrived on U.S. shores, most of whom settled in urban areas and struggled to find homes and jobs. The increasing industrialization in American cities, with plants and factories dotting the landscape, particularly in the Northeast, also attracted new city dwellers looking for work. As urban populations swelled, so did the number of poor and so did crime rates.

Advances in the fields of medicine and psychiatry led to new conclusions about crime and criminals. Many reformers believed that people committed crimes in large part because of their environment or their mental health, rather than because they had simply chosen to break the law. More than ever before, prison administrators focused on the reasons inmates had committed crimes. They used their analysis of each individual to determine that person's treatment in prison. This changing attitude toward crime heavily influenced the modern prison system, as explained by Sullivan in The Prison Reform Movement. "The history of twentieth-century prison reform is the history of the application of, support for, and reactions to Progressive efforts at controlling human behavior."

# data[].attributes.body
Progressive innovations

Among the most significant innovations of that period were probation, parole, and sentencing changes. Probation is the concept of trying to rehabilitate a convicted criminal without sending that person to jail. It became widespread during the first decade of the twentieth century. A person sentenced to probation underwent counseling and was supervised by a probation officer. Progressive era reformers believed that trying to rehabilitate a person who was imprisoned was impossible. The very fact of being in prison interfered substantially with the prisoner's ability to adapt to law-abiding society.

Although the reasoning behind probation was sound, the implementation of such programs proved flawed, in large part because of funding issues. Usually, the cost of imprisonment rested with the state government, while the cost of probation programs was the responsibility of city governments. Probation saved state governments a great deal of money while placing a financial burden on local governments. In many localities, probation programs were poorly funded, resulting in too few, and often underqualified, probation officers. Another issue with probation was that judges were more likely to offer probation to young, middle-class, or well-groomed offenders.

In addition to probation, the practices of parole and indeterminate sentencing also became widespread in the early 1900s. Implementing the notion that prisoners should stay in prison only for the amount of time it takes them to be reformed, many states created laws allowing for prisoners to reduce their sentences through good behavior. Rather than a sentence of a fixed number of months or years, convicts received indeterminate sentences that covered a range of time. After their release, they would remain under close supervision for some time. Upon serving the minimum amount of time prescribed by the sentence, a prisoner could bring his or her case before a parole board, which would examine the prisoner's behavior in prison, criminal past, and current attitude. Parole would be granted for model prisoners who could demonstrate that they had been reformed.

Like probation, the parole system was flawed from the beginning. Parole boards were often made up of people with little expertise in analyzing inmates' prison records and psychological profiles. In addition, they frequently had so many cases to review that they could not spend enough time reviewing each case. The parole officers charged with supervising released prisoners were also usually overwhelmed and unqualified. They often could not devote the necessary time to each parolee. Many members of the general public opposed parole, believing that criminals were returned to society too soon under this system. However, it turned out that a number of prisoners spent more time behind bars under indeterminate sentencing than they would have under the old system. In addition, prisoners released on parole were far from free. Even after leaving the confines of prison life, they still had to live for a set period of time according to rules laid out by the parole board.