After the American Civil War of between 1861 and 1865, the United States witnessed a rapid transformation in its societies as the people shifted from an agrarian-based economy to industrialization. The development of better transport and communication infrastructures across the States paved the way for the fast and profitable transition that made up the Second Industrial Revolution during the Gilded Age. The federal government supported the developing industries by imposing high tariffs to protect the interests of industrialists from foreign competitors. Subsequently, the high taxes on imports and exports guaranteed that the local markets were favorable for both the producers and consumers of the era. At the same time, ideologies of Manifest Destiny propelled a significant portion of the American populace to the Western territories where the vast lands and untapped resources benefitted settlers. Hence, industrialization changed the economic and eventually the social and political spheres of the United States, much to the chagrin of the impoverished lot. In other words, only a select few were benefiting from the emerging factories yet a majority of the people worked in or owned factories, the owners were richer. To that end, bitter debates emerged as the people sought to make sense of what was going on; after all, whereas hard work on farms initially determined one’s access to a better life and wealth, the situation was different in the factories. Naturally, the public became alarmed at the emergence of social classes on American soil and in retaliation, promoted ideologies of egalitarianism in all spheres of society, particularly the economy. In answer, Social Darwinists emerged as an unapologetic group that supported social hierarchies through economic inequality and political favoritism; apparently, any observable disparities were subject to nature and not the whims of humans.
Now, during the Gilded Age in the United States, only those who possessed business skills and ready capital could seize the chances availed by the Second Industrial Revolution, and the rest of the population wallowed in abject poverty. Accordingly, an 1881 census carried out by the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded workers complaining of inadequate housing and exploitation by their employers (Foner GML, 2013, p.499). Notably, the issue of proper housing highlighted their poor living conditions and status as part of the lowest ranking citizens in the social order. Similarly, talks of exploitation evidenced the fact that factory owners took advantage of hired laborers to build personal wealth. Expectedly, the concept of wages, where the number of hours one worked determined the salary he or she received, meant that no matter how hard he or she worked, payment remained constant while production thrived. The publication of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” in 1859 provided what the Social Darwinists considered an excellent explanation of the mentioned factors. While promoting the principles of natural selection and survival for the fittest, the theorist reckoned that all species of animals and plants undergo evolution processes that eliminate the weak and leave the strong. In a slight modification of Darwin’s theory, Social Darwinism revolved around the possibility of human societies being the same (Foner GML, 2013, p.499). In the new environment of industrialization, nature would select the strongest as only the fittest were able to adapt to the changes.
Meanwhile, there were oppositions to the circumstances that surrounded the struggle for existence on American soil and made social hierarchies inevitable. As mentioned before, a personal effort was central to the Social Darwinists’ support for the belief that the prosperous persons cannot be responsible for the wellbeing of others, no matter the circumstances. Contrastingly, those against Darwinism emphasized that nothing was natural about people taking advantage of others, especially when it becomes a trend in a democratic country. Henry George, a political economist and author of Progress and Poverty (1879), was part of those against the naturalization of poverty and inequality in the United States. In the man’s words, “the evils arising from [the] unjust and unequal distribution of wealth” were not dependent on natural law but were instead “[springing] solely from social maladjustments” that ignored nature itself (Foner doc.102, 2013, p.34). Evidently, when the wealthy individuals monopolized markets and funds, they did not adhere to any natural phenomenon but instead, created self-serving circumstances that gave them more riches. Hence, Social Darwinism in the particular case was merely a cover for what was becoming a norm in the country. The concept of equality no longer revolved around liberty as wealth and economic prospects took over and arranged the populations to a strict social order. In concurrence, Henry Demarest Lloyd provided a summary of the situation in the United States during the Gilded Age by emphasizing that “liberty and monopoly [could not] live together” (Foner GML, 2013, p.482). Darwinism became a baseless excuse that the people found numerous grounds on which they could defy.
With the given facts in mind, it was apparently inevitable to have the two sides differ further on the idea of natural selection, particularly in matters concerning the government. On one hand, the idea of freedom in the United States encompassed specific limitations to the powers of the government. Hence, at the economic level, an “unrestrained free market” for all the approved industrial products was part of what defined liberty in the country (Foner GML, 2013, p.500). Additionally, the same ideologies rendered the demands of labor unions baseless as long as workers willingly signed employment contracts with their employees. For a country that had previously thrived on the institution of black slavery, the mechanisms of the slave system were still fresh in the minds of the people, and payable work opportunities did not fit the set criteria. Accordingly, William Sumner held that when Americans did not take up arms against each other, they were indeed free. In other words, while civil liberty was far from equality, it was necessary for turning “competition of a man with [another] man from violence and brute force into an industrial competition” (Foner doc.100, 2013, p.35). Notably, industrialists did not break any laws by offering everyone in the masses an opportunity to earn a decent living; in fact, they were helping their workers be independent individuals. State and federal courts appeared to concur with the Darwinists’ views because they disproved calls for enterprise regulations by pointing out that employees had the right to choose their places of employment. A perfect illustration of the given claim is evident in the 1905 case of Lochner vs. New York, where the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to limit the working limit in bakeries to ten hours (Foner, 2013, p.500). Apparently, Congress could not interfere with manufacturing processes, including working hours. Still, there was a problem as all the mentioned instances only served as a portrayal of government favoritism for industrialists. In that sense, one has to agree with Henry George’s views: “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).
In conclusion, Social Darwinism in American societies gained acceptance among the wealthy but was both immoral and unacceptable among the church leaders and needy individuals in the States. Mainstream Protestants approved political solutions to the problem of Darwinism in the United States while hoping it would solve the moral questions of the age (Foner, 2013, p.504). Naturally, high poverty levels meant equally vast criminal activities that ranged from petty theft to prostitution, all in the hopes of earning a living. Concurrently, the growing cities were merely a sign of desperate people agreeing to work for harsh employers whose greed hindered any upward mobility on the social ladder. In that sense, Charles Darwin’s On the Origins of Species was a threat to religious and social progress.
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.
