1. Harris, Richard A., “A Decade of Reform,” in Harris, Richard A. and Milkis, Sidney M., eds., Remaking American Politics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), 8–10Google Scholar. Rose-Ackerman, Susan, Rethinking the Progressive Agenda: The Reform of the American Regulatory State (New York: The Free Press, 1992)Google Scholar. Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

Stephen Skowronek's influential work attributes the regeneration of government through political reform in the early twentieth century to the successful transition of administrative authority from decentralized to centralized loci (Building a New American State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, p. viii).

2. Dawley, Alan, Struggles for Justice: Social Responsibility and the Liberal State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), 411Google Scholar. Ackerman, Bruce A., Social Justice in the Liberal State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 227–228Google Scholar. Keller, Morton, Regulating a New Economy: Public Policy and Economic Change in America, 1900–1933 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. Keller views antitrust legislation, declining industries, regulation of business, land and resource conservation, and fiscal policies as resting upon patterns of persistence and pluralism first established after the turn of the century.

3. Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Politics of Social Provision in the United Stales, 1870s–1920s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar. Skocpol, Theda and Ritter, Gretchen, “Gender and the Origins of Modern Social Policies in Britain and the United States,” Studies in American Political Development 5:1 (Spring 1991): 36–93Google Scholar.

4. Sklar, Martin J., “Periodization and Historiography: Studying American Political Development in the Progressive Era, 1890–1916,” Studies in American Political Development 5:2 (Fall 1991): 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Mayhew, David R., “U.S. Policy Waves in Comparative Context” (paper presented at the conference “The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations,” University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (1992)Google Scholar, forthcoming in Governing Processes and Political Change, Dodd, Lawrence C. and Jillson, Calvin, eds. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

Mayhew analyzes the two other waves, the New Deal and the 1960s and 1970s, from a cross-national perspective. He identifies the major themes of Progressive era legislation as government efficiency, regulation of industry, progressive taxation, social reform, and democratization of public processes and institutions, such as the direct primary, recall, referendum and the initiative, as well as labor regulation and mothers' pension, ibid., pp. 2–3.

6. Sklar, “Periodization and Historiography,” p. 175.

7. Morone, James A., The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government (New York: Basic Books, 1990), 97–118Google Scholar. In a similar way, Alan Dawley, in his provocative study of the Progressive era, links “new workers” with “new women,” Struggles for Justice, pp. 63–97. Kloppenberg, James also finds cohesive unity between policies advocated by democratic reformers in the early twentieth century, contending that they simultaneously pressed for the “equality of women in the workplace, in the democratic process, and in the family,” Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870–1920 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 253Google Scholar.

Also,Campbell, Ballard evaluates state centralization in the early twentieth century on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of legislative policies without exploring the dimensional structure that may characterize the Progressive era reform agenda, “Federalism, State Action, and ‘Critical Episodes’ in the Growth of American Government,” Social Science History 16:4 (Winter, 1992): 561–578Google Scholar.

8. Skowronek, Building a New American State, op. cit.

9. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, pp. 52–53, 319.

10. Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), 61Google Scholar. According to Rawls, the “primary subject of the principles of social justice” is to be the “basic structure of society, [and] the arrangement of major social institutions into one scheme of cooperation” (p. 54). In his analysis, civil rights and liberties encompass the right of each person to the “most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.” He defines economic and social welfare as the arrangement of “social and economic inequalities” so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (pp. 54–55, 60).

11. Filene, Peter G., “An Obituary for The Progressive Movement,” 22 American Quarterly, (1970): 20–34Google Scholar.

12. Rodgers, Daniel T., “In Search of Progressivism,” Reviews in American History, (12 1982), p. 123Google Scholar.

13. Ibid., pp. 127, 123.

14. On the rare occasions when Progressive era social reformers invoked fundamental principles to justify their policies, these could take the form of “rights claims;” see Linda Gordon, ”Male and Female in U.S. Visions of Welfare, 1890–1935,” paper delivered at the mini-conference on “Gender and the Welfare State,” Social Science History Association, 1990, 17. Todd, Arthur James, author of The Scientific Spirit and Social Work (1920)Google Scholar, found the origin of modern social work in the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Paine, for example (cited in Gordon). As Gordon notes, Todd prefigures Franklin Roosevelt by defining new “rights” to include a decent income, organization for economic protection (unions), leisure, education, recreation, and reasonable health (cited in Gordon). The use of the term, “rights,” however, is far from typical of the language characterizing the Progressive era even though it does connote the social justice component of the reform agenda as applied to economic policies. Thus, I employ the terms “welfare rights” and “civil rights” state, even while recognizing that their meaning primarily rests upon semantic extrapolations from the early to late twentieth century.

15. Jackson, John E. and Kingdon, John W.. 1992. “Ideology, Interest Group Scores, and Legislative Votes,” American Journal of Political Science 36:3 (08 1992): 805–823Google Scholar. See also McDonagh, Eileen L., “Referenda Votes and House Roll Call Voting: Assessing Constituency Influence in the Sixty-third Congress, 1913–1915,” Legislative Studies Quarterly (05 1993)Google Scholar.

16. Katz, Michael B., In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York: Basic Books, 1986), x, xiiiGoogle Scholar. See also Skocpol, Theda, “A Society Without a ‘State’? Political Organization, Social Conflict, and Welfare Provision in the United States,” Journal of Public Policy 7 (1988): 4, 354Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda and Orloff, Ann Shola, “Explaining the Origins of Welfare States: A Comparison of Britain and the United States, 1880s–1920s,” in Lindenberg, Siegwart, Coleman, James S., and Nowak, Stefan, eds., Approaches to Social Theory (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1986), 243–244Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda and Ikenberry, John, “The Political Formation of the American Welfare State in Historical and Comparative Perspective,” Comparative Social Research 6 (1983): 89–90Google Scholar.

17. Ethington, Philip, “Recasting Urban Political History: Gender, the Public, the House-hold, and Political Participation in Boston and San Francisco during the Progressive Era,” Social Science History 16:2 (Summer, 1992): 303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse, p. 194.

19. It should be noted that this definition of the welfare state encompasses regulatory and social insurance policies, along with mechanisms for professional and democratic governance. In contrast, other perspectives often analytically disaggregate these components of state capacity when defining the “welfare” state.

20. Mayhew, “U.S. Policy Waves in Comparative Context,” p. 4.

21. Howells, quoted in Bremner, Robert H., From the Depths: The Discovery of Poverty in the United States (New York, 1956), p. 104Google Scholar.

22. Ibid., pp. 124–125. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse.

23. Mencher, Samuel, Poor Law to Poverty Programs (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974), 275, 299Google Scholar. See also Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse.

24. Robert Fogel, “Panel: Culture, History, and Social Theory,” (Discussion comments in panel at the annual meeting of the Social Science History Association, 1992).

25. The exaggeration of laissez-faire principles of individualism as a cause of social distress is more coterminous with late-nineteenth-century Spencerian notions linking Adam Smith with Darwin than it is with initial principles of liberalism per se Ross, Dorothy, 1991, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) pp. 15,18Google Scholar.

26. Buenker, John D., Urban Liberalism and Progressive Reform (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978)Google Scholar, chapter 2.

27. McCormick, Richard C., The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 269Google Scholar; Goldman, Eric, Rendezvous With Destiny (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1953), p. 75Google Scholar.

Debates continue to rage, of course, about whether enough welfare legislation passed in the Progressive era and whether it was passed as an attempt to assist, co-opt, or socially control the disadvantaged. See Kolko, Gabriel, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916 (New York: The Free Press, 1963)Google Scholar. Yet, given the tenacity of the American laissez-faire context, there is reason to credit these early achievements as marking a conspicuous departure from previous norms restricting the use of government as an instrument for advancing welfare policies.

28. Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal Stale (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981), p. xGoogle Scholar.

29. Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), p. 15Google Scholar.

30. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy. McCraw, Thomas K. ed., Regulation in Perspective: Historical Essays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar. McCraw, Thomas K., Prophets of Regulation: Charles Francis Adams, Louis D. Brandeis, James M. Landis, Alfred E.(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984)Google Scholar. Keller, Regulating a New Economy. Wiebe, Robert H., The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967)Google Scholar.

31. State-level mothers' pensions legislation and passage by Congress of the SheppardTowner Act are exceptions: Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, p. 10.

32. Huntington, Samuel P., American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar. Wiebe, The Search for Order.

33. Vanderpol, Ann, “Dependent Children, Child Custody, and the Mothers' Pensions: the Transformation of State-Family Relations in the Early 20th Century,” Social Problems, 29 (1982): 3, 229–230Google Scholar. Tobin, Eugene identifies the combination of a “concern for positive government intervention and a sensitivity for reform” as the nexus between the Progressive era and subsequent achievements in the New Deal: Organize or Perish: America's Independent Progressives, 1913–1933 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1986), 8Google Scholar.

34. The scope and coverage of this federal legislation co-opted further state level action, as did the Supreme Court, ruling in Erie R. Co. v. N. Y., 233 U.S. 671 (1914), that congressional action in this field precluded additional state laws, even where state legislation attempted to set higher standards. Brandeis, Elizabeth, “Labor Legislation,” in Lescohier, Don D. and Brandeis, Elizabeth, eds., History of Labor in the United States, 1896–1932 (New York: Macmillan, 1935), 549Google Scholar.

35. Lubove, Roger, The Struggle for Social Security, 1900–1935 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986), 54Google Scholar.

36. James Weinstein notes that labor unionists often opposed workmen's compensation legislation, believing that it would only “pension off the worker during his period of disablement at something less than his regular wages,” in contrast to what might be won by employees in court, The Corporate Ideal, p. 43.

37. Link, Arthur S., Wilson: The New Freedom (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956), 256Google Scholar.

38. Dawley, Struggles for Justice, 282–283. The Supreme Court first ruled congressional child labor legislation unconstitutional in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1917) and again in Bailey v. Drexel (1922). As Dawley notes, many state statutes remained on the books, however, throughout the Progressive era (1991, p. 282).

39. Scholars caution us also to recognize the complexity and limitations of mothers' pensions legislation. For example, see Linda Gordon, “Male and Female in US Visions of Welfare, 1890–1935” (paper presented at conference, “Gender and the Welfare State, Social Science History Association,” September 1990); “The New Feminist Scholarship on the Welfare State” in Gordon, Linda, ed., Women, the State, and Welfare (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990)Google Scholar; ”Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890–1945,” The Journal of American History 78:2 (September 1991): 559–590.

According to Barbara Nelson and Gwendolyn Mink, policies within the welfare domain contained anti–civil rights principles adversarial to the interests of the very groups they were meant to benefit. See Barbara Nelson, “Mothers' Aid, Pauper Laws, and Woman Suffrage: The Intersection of the Welfare State and Democratic Participation, 1913–1935” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1990a); “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State: Workmen's Compensation and Mothers' Aid,” in Gordon, Linda, ed., Women, the State, and Welfare, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990b)Google Scholar; “The Gender, Race, and Class Origins of Early Welfare Policy and the Welfare State: A Comparison of Workmen's Compensation and Mothers' Aid,” in Tilly, Louise A. and Gurin, Patricia, eds., Women, Politics, and Change (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1990c)Google Scholar. Also see Gwendolyn Mink, ”Mothers, Soldiers and the Political Welfare: Making Democracy Safe for America in the 1920s” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1989).

As Nelson points out (1990a), in some states at the turn of the century, women receiving mothers' pensions benefits were susceptible to civil restrictions on paupers, limiting where they could live and their rights to marry and vote. Such anti–civil rights elements embedded in welfare policies are a preview of what this research identifies as the defining feature of Progressive era reform: The institutionalization of an anti–civil rights state in conjunction with a pro-welfare state.

40. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers.

41. Wiebe, The Search for Order, pp. 6, 60–61.

42. Skowronek, Building a New American State, pp. 62–67.

43. McDonald, Terrence J., The Parameters of Urban Fiscal Policy: Soaoeconomic Change and Political Culture in San Francisco, 1860–1906 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), xiGoogle Scholar.

44. See Buenker, John for an excellent analysis of the historical and legislative context of the Sixteenth Amendment, The Income Tax and the Progressive Era (New York: Garland Publishing, 1985)Google Scholar.

45. Coleman, Peter J., Progressivism and the World of Reform: New Zealand and the Origins of the American Welfare State (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1987), 7Google Scholar.

46. Butler, David and Ranney, Austin, eds., Referendums: A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978), 5Google Scholar.

47. Goldman, Rendezvous With Destiny, 291. See also Cronin, Thomas E., Direct Democracy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. For a contemporary analysis of the way direct participation by citizens relates to the establishment of democratic political processes, see work by Portney, Kent, Berry, Jeffrey, and Thomson, Ken, “Race, Neighborhoods, and Strong Democracy” (paper presented at the “Workshop on Race, Ethnicity, Representation, and Governance,” Harvard University, 01 21–22, 1993)Google Scholar.

49. Clausen, Aage R., How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973), 40Google Scholar.

50. The distinction between civil rights and civil liberties is a rather recent one where the former usually denotes the protection of minorities or disadvantaged marginal groups and the latter refers to all other claims of personal rights and freedoms that are—or ought to be—respected by the government. McCloskey, Robert G., “Constitutional Law: Civil Liberties,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 3. (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 307Google Scholar.

51. Social psychology defines the “unresponsive bystander” as one or more bystanders who though obviously curious and attentive offer no assistance to an individual in obviously desperate trouble. A notorious example occurred in 1964 when thirty-eight “unresponsive bystanders” witnessed the murder of Kitty Genovese without aiding her in any way whatso-ever. McDonagh, Eileen L., “Social Exchange and Moral Development: Two Dimensions of Traumatic Human Interaction,” Human Relations 35 (08 1982): 666Google Scholar.

The explanation offered by most social psychologists for this phenomenon is that the behavioral “costs” for involvement are too great. Brown, Roger W. and Hernstein, Richard J., Psychology (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), 300Google Scholar. Analyses of individuals, groups, and institutions adjudicating civil rights policies suggest ideological orientations as well. Five states, for example, have legislated “good Samaritan” statutes, requiring individuals to come to the aid of victims of crimes or accidents if they can do so without endangering themselves, thereby rendering, in those instances, “unresponsive bystander” behavior criminal. Alison Mclntyre, 1992. “Guilty Bystanders? Reflections on Good Samaritan Laws” (paper presented at the Bunting Institute Colloquium Series, Radcliffe College, April 1992).

52. Grantham, Dewey W. Jr, “The Progressive Movement and the Negro,” South Atlantic Quarterly LIV (10 1955): 476Google Scholar. Link, Arthur S. and Catton, William B., American Epoch: A History of the United States Since the 1890's, Vol. 1 (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1967)Google Scholar.

53. Valelly, Richard M., “The Puzzle of Disfranchisement: Party Struggle and African-American Suffrage in the South, 1867–1894” (paper presented at the “Workshop on Race, Ethnicity, Representation, and Governance,” Harvard University, 01 21–22, 1993)Google Scholar.

In addition to legislation, culturally prejudiced attitudes commonly acquired scientific stamps of authenticity from scholars of the time. See Haraway's, DonnaPrimate Visions (New York: Routledge, 1989)Google Scholar. Higham, John notes that Progressive era racism rested on a foundation of imperialism forged by aggressive Anglo-Saxon nationalistic enterprises, such as the Spanish-American War of 1898, Strangers in the Land (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1955), 170–171Google Scholar.

54. Foner, Eric, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution: 1863–1877 (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), 286–287Google Scholar.

55. Baker, Robin E., “Counting the Black Voter: Reconstruction Politics in North Carolina, 1865–1868” (paper presented at the Social Science History Association, 1990), p. 17Google Scholar.

56. Ibid., p. 20.

57. Carol M. Swain, “Changing Patterns of African-American Representation in Congress,” in Allen Hertzke and Ronald Peters, eds., Why Congress Changes (M.E. Sharpe, forth-coming, 20–23.

58. Ibid., pp. 24–26.

59. Ibid., p. 25.

60. Ibid., pp. 4–5.

61. Kousser, J. Morgan, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

62. As J. Morgan Kousser notes, technically there was no categorical denial of the right to vote based on race per se in state legislation; therefore, these were not technically disenfranchisement laws. For good reason, therefore, poor whites worried about how they, too, would be disenfranchised. This was the price, however, economically secure white southerners were willing to pay after black male voters demonstrated their political strength and after Populists to some degree had succeeded in forging a white–Negro coalition in the South. Kousser, J. Morgan, The Shaping of Southern Politics, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Goldman, Eric, Rendezvous With Destiny (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1953)Google Scholar.

63. Congressional Record, (House, 1915), p. 1464.

64. Ibid., p. 1476.

65. Weiss, Nancy J., “The Negro and the New Freedom: Fighting Wilsonian Segregation,” Political Science Quarterly LXXXIV:1 (03 1969): 62–63Google Scholar.

66. Ibid., p. 66.

67. Ibid., pp. 66–67. Leaders of the settlement-house workers, such as Jane Addams, Lillian Wald, Frances Kellor, and Florence Kelley, were notable exceptions to the generally hostile sentiment in the Progressive era toward African-Americans. They were active in the creation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, were delegates to international pan-African conferences organized by William E. B. DuBois, and strove to combat racial prejudice. Trattner, Walter I., From Poor Law to Welfare State (New York: The Free Press, 1979), 146Google Scholar. Yet, as Trattner notes, the “general public did not share the settlement-house workers' perceptions of and concern for the problem, and racism continued to permeate American society. Most blacks were unaffected by the reform activities and social advances that characterized the [Progressive] era” during which black citizens remained “‘poor and powerless’” (pp. 146–147).

68. Rogin, Michael Paul, Ronald Reagan, The Movie and Other Episodes in Political Demonology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 190–191Google Scholar.

69. Birth of a Nation was based on the novel The Clansman, written by the notorious white supremacist Reverend Thomas Dixon, who had studied with Woodrow Wilson at Johns Hopkins University. This novel, the basis for the play of the same name, had touched off a vicious one-sided race riot in Atlanta in 1906 when a mob of 10,000–15,000 whites attacked unarmed blacks, leaving at least twenty-five dead, four of whom were beaten to death. The 3,000 state militiamen dispatched to Atlanta by the governor ignored white perpetrators. Instead, they rounded up black professors and students, whom they arrested and marched through the streets. Painter, Nell Irvin, Standing at Armageddon (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 218–219Google Scholar.

70. Wilson, quoted in Rogin, Ronald Reagan, the Movie and Other Episodes in Political Demonology, pp. 192–193.

71. Ibid., p. 195.

72. Goldman, Rendezvous With Destiny, p. 177.

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid.

75. Ibid., pp. 36–37.

76. Schuck, Peter H., “The Transformation of Immigration Law,” Columbia Law Review 84 (1984): 1, 5–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77. Schuck, ibid., pp. 5–6.

78. See Schuck, ibid., for an analysis of the transformation of contemporary immigration policies.

79. Guston, David H., “The Eugenics Agenda and the Progressive Movement” (paper prepared for Professor Walter Dean Burnham's course, “Evolution of American Politics,” MIT, 1988), pp. 17–19Google Scholar.

80. Ibid., p. 19.

81. Ibid., p. 20.

82. Ibid., p. 1.

83. Ibid., p. 8. Rafter, Nicole Hahn, “Crime and the Family” (Twenty-fifth Annual Robert D. Klein University Lecture, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 1989), p. 7Google Scholar.

84. Ibid., p. 7. The First International Eugenics Congress, held in 1912 at the Imperial Institute at the University of London, was attended by 836 scholars. A review of the conference noted the “almost entire absence of the sensationalism, and hasty generalization as to the solution of fundamental social problems,” and cited among the best papers one that showed the “preponderant influence of heredity in influencing the course of history.” Pearl, Raymond, “The First International Eugenics Congress,” Science 36 (09 27, 1912): 395–396CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

85. Ibid., pp. 12, 10.

86. Ibid., p. 10.

87. 274 U.S. 200 (1927). The lone dissenter was Justice Butler.

88. Ibid., pp. 11–12.

89. Ibid., p. 11. Also, by the early 1930s, forty-one states had legislated laws restricting marriages of those diagnosed as feeble-minded and insane. David H. Guston, “The Eugenics Agenda and the Progressive Movement,” p. 14.

90. Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard A., Why Americans Don't Vole (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988)Google Scholar.

91. Bridges, Amy, “Writing the Rules to Win the Game: the Middle Class Regimes of Municipal Reformers” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1992)Google Scholar.See Reynolds, John for an alternative evaluation of electoral reform in the Progressive era. Testing Democracy: Electoral Behavior and Progressive Reform in New Jersey, 1880–1920 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988)Google Scholar, chapter 6.

92. McCormick, , The Party Period and Public Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 281–282Google Scholar.

93. Link and Catton, American Epoch.

94. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).

95. Goldstein, Leslie Friedman, The Constitutional Rights of Women, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), p. 9Google Scholar.

In Lochner, the Court noted that Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, had been a borderline case involving the constitutional exercise of the police power of the state. In Holden, the Court had upheld a Utah law “limiting the employment of workmen in all underground mines or workings, to eight hours per day” as a “valid exercise of the police powers of the State,” since there was general consensus that the nature of the employment and the employees warranted such state intrusion. The Court stated clearly in Lochner, however, that “there is a limit to the valid exercise of the police power of the State,” noting that state legislatures “would have unbounded power, and it would be enough to say that any piece of legislation was enacted to conserve the morals, the health or the safety of the people” to render such legislation “valid, no matter how absolutely without foundation that claim might be.” The Court went on to state in Lochner that the “claim of the police power would be a mere pretext—become another and delusive name for the supreme sovereignty of the State to be exercised free from constitutional restraint.”

96. Strum, Philippa, Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People (New York: Schocken Books, 1984), 314–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97. Ibid., p. 330.

98. Ibid.

99. Ibid.

100. Buechler, Steven M., The Transformation of the Woman Suffrage Movement: The Case of Illinois, 1850–1920 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1986), 118Google Scholar.

101. Bordin, Ruth, Women and Temperance: The Quest for Power and Liberty, 1873–1900 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), p. xvGoogle Scholar.

102. Ibid., pp. 4–5.

103. Ibid., p. 3.

104. Ibid., p. 8.

105. Ibid., pp. 135–136.

106. Ibid., p. 140. Bordin, Ruth, Frances Willard (Chapel Hill: North Carolina Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

107. Buechler, The Transformation of the Woman Suffrage Movement, p. 120. See also, Moynihan, Ruth Barnes, Rebel For Rights (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar for a discussion of suffrage leader Abigail Scott Duniway's opposition to linking women's right to vote to Prohibition.

108. Gusfield, Joseph R., Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1963)Google Scholar.

109. Hofstadter, The Age of Reform.

110. McDonald, Terrence J., “The Burden of Urban History: The Theory of the State in Recent American Social History,” in Studies of American Political Development, Vol. 3, edited by Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

111. This reality was sealed by the failure of the Supreme Court to extend voting rights to women in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875).

112. Flexner, Eleanor, Century of Struggle: The Woman's Rights Movement in the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 147–149Google Scholar.

113. Ibid., p. 176.

114. McDonagh, Eileen L., “Representative Democracy and State Building in the Progressive Era,” American Political Science Review 86:4 (12 1992): 938–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115. Morgan, David, Suffragists and Democrats: The Politics of Woman Suffrage in America (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1972)Google Scholar, chapter 10.

116. The timing of woman suffrage leads some to classify it as a legislative achievement outside the scope of this period altogether (Carl Albert Center, 1990).

117. Major works analyzing La Follette's policy positions omit any reference to woman suffrage in contrast to his active support of equitable taxation, railroad regulation and taxation, and the direct primary. See Thelen, David P., The New Citizenship: Origins of Progressivism in Wisconsin, 1885–1900 (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1972), 294–293, 302Google Scholar, and mothers' pension policies, Leff, Mark, “Consensus for Reform: the Mother's Pension Movement in the Progressive Era,” Social Service Review 47 (1973): 405Google Scholar. La Follette did speak out forcibly in favor of woman suffrage on the Senate floor in 1919 once woman suffrage was enacted. Thelen, David P., Robert M. LaFollette and the Insurgent Spirit (Boston: Little, Brown, 1976), 166Google Scholar, but scholars attribute this more to his tendency to cater to popular opinion now that suffrage reflected a majority opinion in the Congress than to a long-standing record as an advocate (Thelen, 1972, p. 302).

118. Ethington, Philip, “Three Axes of Urban Politics” (paper delivered at the American Historical Association, 1991), p. 15Google Scholar.

119. Link, Wilson: The New Freedom, p. 257.

120. Snapp, Meredith A., “Defeat the Democrats: The Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage in Arizona, 1914 and 1916,” 14 Journal of the West, (1975): 131–139Google Scholar.

121. Johnson, Donald Bruce, National Party Platform, 1840–1972 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1973), 112–207Google Scholar.

122. Buhle, Mari Jo and Buhle, Paul, eds., The Concise History of Woman Suffrage (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978), 328Google Scholar.

123. Buechler, The Transformation of the Woman Suffrage Movement, p. 121. Goldman, Rendezvous With Destiny, p. 76.

124. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, p. 340.

125. Quoted in Goldman, Rendezvous With Destiny, p. 76.

126. Ibid.

127. Quoted in Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, p. 340.

128. Reed, Adolph Jr, “DuBois's ‘Double Consciousness’: Race and Gender in Progressive Era American Thought,” Studies in American Political Development 6:1 (Spring 1992): 124–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

129. Smith, Rogers M., “One United People: Second Class Female Citizenship and the American Quest for Community,” Yale Journal of Law and Humanities 1 (1988): 274Google Scholar.

130. Cott, Nancy F., The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

131. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. Baker, Paula, “The Domestication of Politics: Women and American Political Society, 1780–1920,” American Historical Review (1984): 620–647Google Scholar.

132. Goldman, Rendezvous With Destiny, p. 292. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, p. 506.

133. The maternal albatross hung round the Nineteenth Amendment exemplifies the dangers Joan Scott sees as inherent for women positioned in a democratic system founded upon both a principle of equality and the reality of inequality between groups. The dilemma posed for women becomes “[h]ow to recognize and refuse terms of discrimination, [and] how to act collectively on behalf of women without confirming the ‘reality’ of a separate female sphere,” Scott, Joan Wallach, Gender and the Politics of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 196Google Scholar.

This “difference and sameness” argument is a point of ongoing contention in feminist scholarship, not to mention historical interpretation. As Harriet Burton Laidlaw put it in 1912, “insofar as women were like men they ought to have the same rights; insofar as they were different they must represent themselves” (as paraphrased in Kraditor, Aileen S., The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement, 1890—1920 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 111)Google Scholar.

134. See Barbara J. Nelson, “Mothers' Aid, Pauper Laws, and Woman Suffrage,” “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State: Workmen's compensation and Mothers' Aid,” “The Gender, Race, and Class Origins of Early Welfare Policy and the Welfare State,” op. cit., and “Women's Poverty and Women's Citizenship: Some Political Consequences of Economic Marginality,” in Gelpi, Barbara C., Hartsock, Nancy C. M., Novak, Clare C., and Strober, Myra H., eds., Women and Poverty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

Some saw clearly the liability of the underlying maternalism justifying woman suffrage. Consequently, they immediately pushed for an Equal Rights Amendment, as a corrective. Though the ERA was proposed in 1923, it failed the ratification process after passage in Congress. Most point to the residual assumptions of differences between men and women as the reason. See Mansbridge, Jane J., Why We Lost the ERA (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1986)Google Scholar. As Barbara Nelson put it so succinctly, in the development of the American state, motherhood remains a reason “both for the political inclusion of some women and the political exclusion of others,” op. cit., p. 3.

135. While a “micro-level” theory of voting in general, and of referenda and roll-call voting in particular, lie outside the scope of this research, analysts often downplay the effects of parties as mediating structures connecting voters to electoral processes in the case of referenda voting. See Mayhew, David, Placing Parties in American Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 316–318Google Scholar.

136. Government was professionalized by means of policies providing salaries for office holders and new mechanisms for their election, as well as progressive fiscal policies, including new tax measures.

137. Child, Dennis, The Essentials of Factor Analysis (London: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970), pp. 1–2Google Scholar.

138. Ibid., p. 2.

139. Factor analysis results are varimax rotations of principle-component analysis, conducted after prior techniques of rotation analysis indicated uncorrelated factors, either because oblique rotations yielded no factor solution or because correlations between factors using oblique rotation failed to exceed an absolute value of.2.

140. Amenta, Edwin, Clemens, Elisabeth S., Olsen, Jefren, Parikh, Sunita, and Skocpol, Theda, “The Political Origins of Unemployment Insurance in Five American States,” Studies in American Political Development 2 (1987): 137–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

141. Orloff, Ann Shola and Skocpol, Theda, “Why Not Equal Protection? Explaining the Politics of Public Social Spending in Britain, 1900–1911, and the United States, 1880–1920,” American Sociological Review 49:6 (12 1984): 732CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

142. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse, p. 133.

143. Mayhew, “U.S. Policy Waves in Comparative Context,” p. 3.

144. Note, the Prohibition vote is coded to reflect opposition, not support, to maintain consistency with the positive civil rights voting on racial and gender issues; see note b, Table 2.

This finding is reinforced by the placement of Prohibition, considered here a civil rights issue, which is separated from the welfare domain as well as from woman suffrage. While many scholars point to the close associations between woman suffrage and Prohibition, this finding points instead to complexity, if not discontinuities, underlying their sources of support. As discussed above, while woman suffrage leadership often overlapped with the earlier, nineteenth-century temperance movement, twentieth-century Prohibition efforts, spear-headed by the Anti-Saloon League, constitute a distinctly different chapter in the history of the association of women's organizations with efforts to legislatively abolish the use of alcohol.

145. Lubove, Roger, The Struggle for Social Security, 1900–1935 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986), 99Google Scholar.

146. The location of Prohibition on a separate factor from that of woman suffrage reinforces a view that these two policies are disjunctive to each other, rather than associated. In addition, orientations toward Prohibition are directly inverted to tax and fiscal reform. The Prohibition vote has been coded to reflect opposition to this policy, and its negative factor score indicates a direct inverse relationship between those who supported civil rights (by opposing Prohibition) and those who supported positive fiscal reform, with the one exception of the taxation of corporations, which stands in a positive relationship to opposition to Prohibition.

147. Bensel, Richard Franklin, Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880–1980 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Sanders, Elizabeth, “Industrial Concentration, Sectional Competition, and Antitrust Policies in America, 1880–1980,” Studies in American Political Development 1 (1986)Google Scholar.

148. Sarasohn, David, The Party of Reform: Democrats in the Progressive Era (Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

149. Walker, Jack L., “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States,” American Political Science Review 63 (1969); 3, 880–899Google Scholar. Walker, Jack L., “Innovation in State Politics,” in Jacob, Herbert and Vines, Kenneth N. eds., Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, 2nd (Boston, 1971)Google Scholar. Gray, Virginia, “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study,” American Political Science Review 67 (1973): 1174–1185Google Scholar. Virginia Gray, “Competition, Emulation, and Policy Innovation,” paper presented at the conference, “The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations,” University of Colorado, Boulder, CO (1992), forthcoming in Governing Processes and Political Change, edited by Dodd, Lawrence C. and Jillson, Calvin (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1993)Google Scholar. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers.

150. Miller, Warren and Stokes, Donald, “Constituency Influences in Congress,” American Political Science Review 57 (1963)Google Scholar; Converse, Philip and Pierce, Roy, Political Representation in France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

151. Fiorina, Morris, Representatives, Roll Calk, and Constituencies (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1974)Google Scholar; Eulau, Heinz, “The Congruence Model Revisited,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 12 (1987)Google Scholar; Kingdon, John, Congressmen's Voting Decisions (New York: Harper and Row, 1981)Google Scholar, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Boston: Little Brown, 1984).

152. Powell, Bingham G. JrContemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), 186Google Scholar; Dodd, Lawrence D., “A Theory of Congressional Cycles: Solving Puzzle and Change,” in Wright, Gerald C. Jr, Rieselbach, Leroy N., and Dodd, Lawrence C., eds., Congress and Public Policy (New York: Agathon Press, 1986), 15Google Scholar; Brady, David W., Congressional Voting in a Partisan Era (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1973)Google Scholar, chapter 3; Arnold, R. Douglas, The Logic of Congressional Action (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

153. Eileen L. McDonagh, “Representative Democracy and State Building.”

154. In the case of woman suffrage, for example, I show elsewhere how the shift from very low levels of state support in 1915 to extremely high levels by 1919 accounts for a concomitant shift at the national level, which resulted in the success of this amendment in the Sixty-sixth Congress. McDonagh, “Representative Democracy and State Building.”

155. Brady, David W., Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), 11Google Scholar.

156. The West is an exception only to the degree that it is the one region supportive of woman suffrage. Yet, even here, civil rights legislation passes as part of a separate issue domain from of welfare policies; see above. Also, closer examination of civil rights policies in the West proves claims of an across-the-board positive civil rights record must be modified. Citizenship rights of Asian immigrants were seriously curtailed in the West, particularly in California. See Faist, Thomas, “After the Goldrush: Organized Labor and Chinese Exclusion in California and Eastern Australia in the Late 19th and 20th Century” (New York: Center for Studies of Social Change, New School for Social Research, 1990)Google Scholar. Eugenics sterilization legislation can be found on referenda ballots of such states as Oregon in 1913.

157. While it is common to link Prohibition with suffrage, we see instead the connection between support for immigration restriction and Prohibition. This leads us to view Prohibition as part of a package intended to control the entry of immigrants and their lifestyles, once arrived. Rationales for woman suffrage, it appears, arose from other orientations. This is consistent with earlier work showing no systematic relationship in the Midwest between support for Prohibition and woman suffrage, while controlling for partisanship. See McDonagh, Eileen L., “Issues and Constituencies in the Progressive Era,” Journal of Politics 51:1 (02 1989): 127—128CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The one exception is a high correlation between the two issues in the voting decisions of Republican House members from midwestern states that had not legislated either issue. This exception, however, all but proves the rule, since this correlation is confined to this specific circumstance, rather than characteristic of other regional and partisan configurations.

158. Skowronek, Building a New American Slate.

159. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers.

160. Morone, The Democratic Wish. Sklar, “Periodization and Historiography.” Dawley, Struggles For Justice. Kloppenberg, Uncertain Victory.

161. Rodgers, “In Search of Progressivism.” Filene, “An Obituary for The Progressive Movement.” Skowronek, Stephen, “Franklin Roosevelt and the Modern Presidency,” Studies in American Political Development 6:2 (Fall 1992): 322–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

162. Classic debates assessing policies within the welfare domain as mere cooptations of labor interests or positive developments benefitting the disadvantaged pale by comparison to the dramatic policy contrasts between the welfare and civil rights domains, rather than within either. See Gabriel Kolko for a prominent example of a proponent of the cooptation thesis (1963), and Richard Hofstadter, Arthur Link, and other major historians for a consensus view of political change responsive to the economic and social needs of disadvantaged groups. Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; Link and Catton, American Epoch.

163. McCormick, Richard C., The Party Period and Public Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

164. Ethington, “Recasting Urban Political History,” p. 304.

165. Work by Philip Ethington indicates this pattern holds at the municipal level as well. “Three Axes of Urban Politics” (paper delivered at the American Historical Association, 1991), p. 13.

166. Identifying this policy paradox expands on Anne Norton's suggestion that we study the “role of the dialectic in the political history of race,” gender and class. Norton, , “Conference Panel: On Political Identity,” Studies in American Political Development 6 (Spring 1992): 148–149Google Scholar.

We must investigate not only how the hegemony she analyzes rests upon an integrated foundation of anti–civil rights policies targeting a wide range of groups across all regions of the country and levels of government, but how it was combined with proactive welfare policies as well.

The comprehensive nature of the policy paradox established in the Progressive era, cutting across all regions and levels of government questions, also raises questions about political economy explanations of public policy outcomes. Attributing the lack of democratic policies in the South in the Progressive era to the exploitation of landless labor, for example, is questionable, since anti-civil rights policies also typify the industrial North and East.

167. Converse, Philip E., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Apter, David E., ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), 207Google Scholar. By “constraint,” Converse meant that “the probability that a change in the perceived status (truth, desirability, and so forth) of one idea-element would psychologically require, from the point of view of the actor, some compensating change(s) in the status of idea-elements elsewhere in the configuration,” “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” p. 208.

168. Ibid., p. 229.

169. Warren Miller and Donald Stokes verified that grassroots citizens evidence disjuncture between issue civil rights and welfare policy domains defined, and also showed how this policy disaggregation is transferred to their elected policy officials in Congress, where it is replicated at the national level: “Constituency Influences in Congress (1963). Building upon their work, Aage Clausen developed a typology of five issue dimensions precisely on the basis of their substantive and statistical discontinuities: How Congressmen Decide.

From a cross-national perspective, Robert Putnam's study of Britain and Italy found political elites differentially grouped on the basis of their “ideological styles,” which he found accounted for their differential support of policy issues, The Beliefs of Politicians: Ideology, Conflict, and Democracy in Britain and Italy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973).

Even scholars who do find some evidence of unidimensional attitudes caution that such cohesion is short-term, operating for no more than four to five years. See Wright, Gerald C. Jr, “Elections and the Potential for Policy Change in Congress,” in Congress and Policy Change, edited by Wright, Gerald C. Jr, Reiselbach, Leroy N., and Dodd, Lawrence C. (New York: Agathon Press, 1986), 97Google Scholar. Some, however, assert unidimensional perspectives. For a discussion of this approach, see Poole, Keith and Rosenthal, Howard, “Patterns of Congressional Voting,” American Journal of Political Science 35:1 (02 1991): 228–278Google Scholar.

170. Smith, Rogers M., “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America, American Political Science Review (09 1993Google Scholar, forthcoming).

171. Ibid., 21–23.

172. Ibid., 28.

173. Ibid., 29.

174. See Schlesinger, Arthur Jr, for an analysis of cyclical theories of American political history, “Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “ New Viewpoints in American History Revisited,” New England Quarterly LXI:4 (12 1988): 483–501Google Scholar. See Huntington, Samuel for his influential cyclical analysis of American political reform, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar. For a punctuated-equilibrium view of policy change, see Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D., Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

175. Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek, “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for a ‘New’ Institutionalism” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association 1991).

176. Ibid., 24–25, 65–66.

177. The policy paradox identified here reinforces conceptions of the relationship between society and the state in terms of porous boundaries; see Bendix, John, “Comment: Going Beyond the State?” American Political Science Review 86:4 (1992)Google Scholar: 1010.

It also shows how boundary negotiation can entail major contradictions between policy domains. Surely, redrawing boundaries between society and the state was a major enterprise in the Progressive era, necessary for expanding the authority of government to take on regulatory assignments responsive to the needs of those economically disadvantaged by the advent of rapid and brutal industrialization at the turn of the century. See Burnham, Walter Dean, The Current Crisis in American Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 42Google Scholar; and Wiebe, Search for Order. Yet, as we have seen, progress made in the welfare domain characteristically was accompanied by regressive change in the civil rights domain.

178. As Sparrow, Bartholomew frames the question, the issue is whether the state is defined as the explanatory or dependent variable in relation to society: “Comment: Going Beyond the State?” American Political Science Review 86:4 (1992): 1013–1014Google Scholar.

179. Hochschild, Jennifer L., “Race, Class, Power, and the American Welfare State,” in Gutman, Amy, ed., Democracy and the Welfare State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 157–158Google Scholar.

180. Beer, Samuel H., To Make a Nation: The Rediscovery of American Federalism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 18–19, 273Google Scholar.

181. See work by Robert Lieberman analyzing how racial division in American society impeded development of an effective administrative state in the New Deal: “Race and the Organization of Social Policy” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1992).

182. Pritchett, C. Herman, “Constitutional Law,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1968)Google Scholar, cited in Konvitz, Milton R., “Constitutional Law: Civil Rights,” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1968)Google Scholar.

183. This stands in stark contrast to what Martha Derthick points to as the host of contemporary civil rights policies stemming from federal courts “admonishing various state and local officeholders about schools, prisons, mental health institutions, or the conduct of police forces in enforcing criminal law,” which has the effect of federal judges “instructing whole polities” despite their complex, grassroots differentiation. “Up-to-Date in Kansas City: Reflections on American Federalism,“ The 1992 Gaus, John Lecture, PS: Political Science and Politics (Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, 12 1992), 673Google Scholar.

184. See Lieberman, op cit., “Race.”

185. Some credit Prohibition, for example, with the onset of organized crime in the United States. See Cashman, Sean Dennis, Prohibition (New York: The Free Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

186. The term is Smith, Rogers's: “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America,” American Political Science Review (09 1993Google Scholar forthcoming).