THE SOCIAL DARWINISTS
Argument: Social Darwinism promoted trends of economic inequality, hierarchical societies, and the political favoritism witnessed in the United States during the Gilded Age.
BACKGROUND: The Second Industrial Revolution
Industrial based economy: While factory production expanded rapidly, mining efforts and the construction of the railroad throughout the United States transitioned the country to an era of manufacturing and trade.
High tariffs protected industries from foreign competition.
The removal of Indians in the West availed land for construction of the railway and industries.
The industry-induced social problem: Hard work no longer guaranteed wealth; on the contrary, only those with business skills and money could generate more income while the rest of the people wallowed in abject poverty.
Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics: In 1881, workers in Fall River textile factory complained of exploitation and inadequate housing (Foner GML, 2013, p.499).
Public discussion turned towards social classes in which there were the respectable or better persons and the dangerous or inferior groups existing in the United States.
Social Darwinists: In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species and introduced the concept of natural selection: in evolution, all species of animals and plants conform to the principle of survival for the fittest where the strongest replace the weak (Foner GML, 2013, p.499). The same applied to human societies.
The survival of the fittest: Economic differences are subject to individuals and not the government or wealthy individuals.
Darwinists argued that Industrial efforts had always existed but could only survive and take root in the Gilded Age because the environment of the time was adaptable.
Therefore, the American societies were undergoing a natural process by evolving to a manufacturing economy.
Any restrictions will set back American organizations to a primitive stage.
Apparently, the efforts to change the social order, such as through the enactment of “laws regulating conditions of work” and programs seeking to offer “public assistance to the poor” defied the laws of nature (Foner GML, 2013, p.499).
The signs of failure in the society were merely an indication of people lacking character and self-reliance with which they can face hardships with the same determination that the wealthy display.
Therefore, whether rich or poor, a person was responsible for his or her fate and could not blame or force another to help in any way.
On Social Darwinism (ca.1880): William Graham Sumner, “The victims of [misery and poverty], are those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Foner doc.100, 2013, p.34).
The struggle for existence: Social hierarchies are inevitable when individuals work for their persons and not for the benefits of others.
Darwinists asserted that social failures were not because of the rich man’s wealth, but a matter of personal effort.
Henry Demarest Lloyd rightfully summarized the situation by stating, “Liberty and monopolycannot live together” (Foner GML, 2013, p.482).
Liberty for all no longer depicted social equality as economic change became the precursor of social order in the United States.
Progress and Poverty (1879): Henry George, “the evils arising from [the] unjust and unequal distribution of wealth” do not depend on natural laws but “spring solely from social maladjustments which ignore [said] natural laws" (Foner doc.102, 2013, p.34).
When the wealthy monopolize funds, they do not adhere to the laws of nature but create self-serving regulations to create more riches.
Natural selection: The government should not interfere with the natural process that allocates wealth to certain individuals and leaves others to toil for similar opportunities.
Freedom encompassed limitations to the government’s influence and an “unrestrained free market” for goods manufactured in the United States (Foner GML, 2013, p.500).
Labor and Unions could not interfere with contracts workers willingly signed.
Americans could not claim there was no liberty as long as they sought work opportunities from the rich.
In William Graham Sumner’s views, the impression of independence did not mean automatic equality but was the grounds on which Americans did not take up arms against each other. To that end: “What civil liberty does is to turn the competition of a man with [another] man from violence and brute force into an industrial competition” (Foner doc.100, 2013, p.35).
The State and Federal Courts disproved economic enterprise regulations on the grounds of free laborers having the right to choose employment conditions.
Entrepreneurs also exercised the right to handle provided labor as one would a piece of property as long as there were payments.
United States v. E. C. Knight Co.: In 1895, the U.S Supreme Court termed the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 as baseless because Congress could not regulate manufacturing (Foner, 2013, p.500).
Lochner V. New York: In 1905, state law aiming at limiting working periods for bakers to ten hours per day became void before the U.S Supreme Court.
Contrastingly, Henry George held that “the poverty, which in the midst of abundance, pinches and [imbrutes] men, and all the manifold evils which flow from it, spring from a denial of justice (Foner doc.102, 2013, p.40).
RESPONSE
Mainstream Protestants reproached Social Darwinists and sanctioned political solutions to the threatened morality in the United States during the Gilded Age (Foner, 2013, p.504).
Labor conflicts promoted immoral behaviors among Americans as the rich exploited the needy persons.
The growth of cities directly implied the loss of good conduct as people became desperate and the increased properties reflected the wealthy men’s greed.
Scientific advances such as Charles Darwin’s ideologies were a threat to religion.
References
Foner, E. (2013). Give Me Liberty!: An American History (4th ed., Vol. II). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Foner, E. (2013). Voices of Freedom: A Documentary History (4th ed., Vol. II). New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.
