ABSTRACT Title of Document: “AMERICA WAS PROMISES”: THE IDEOLOGY OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, 1877-1905 Claire Claudia Goldstene, Ph.D., 2009 Directed By: Professor Gary Gerstle, Department of History “‘America was Promises’: The Ideology of Equal Opportunity, 1877-1905” seeks to untangle one of the enduring ideas in American history—equal economic opportunity—by exploring the varied discourses about its meaning during the upheavals caused by the corporate consolidation of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. In so doing, a new framework is proposed through which to comprehend the social and political disruptions wrought by the transition from an entrepreneurial to a corporate society. This framework centers on a series of tensions that have permeated the idea of opportunity in the American context. As an expression of capitalism, the ideology of equal opportunity historically occupies conflicted terrain as it endeavors to promote upward mobility by permitting more people to participate in the economic sphere and emphasizing merit over inherited wealth, while it concurrently acts as a mechanism to maintain economic inequality. This tension allowed the rhetoric of opportunity to animate social dissent among rural and urban workers—the origins of Progressive reform—even as it simultaneously served efforts by business elites to temper this dissent. The dissertation examines the discourses about the ideology of equal opportunity of prominent figures and groups located along a spectrum of political belief. Some grounded opportunity in land ownership (Booker T. Washington); others defined it as control of one’s own labor (Knights of Labor); while others connected opportunity to increased leisure and consumption (Samuel Gompers and business elites). As this occurred, the site of opportunity shifted away from entrepreneurship toward competition for advancement and investment within the corporation. Most social activists and reformers stressed the conditions necessary for equal opportunity to thrive. They thus reinforced assumptions about the benefits of economic competition and differentially rewarding individuals, even as they objected to the results of that system. And, certainly, some of these arguments led to progressive changes. But because the necessary outcome of equal opportunity was an inequality of economic result, to move beyond the boundaries of equal opportunity ideology demanded a rare willingness (Edward Bellamy) to question the system of economic competition itself. “AMERICA WAS PROMISES”: THE IDEOLOGY OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, 1877-1905 By Claire Claudia Goldstene Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2009 Advisory Committee: Professor Gary Gerstle, Chair Professor Ira Berlin Associate Professor Saverio Giovacchini Associate Professor Mary Corbin Sies Professor Barbara Weinstein © Copyright by Claire Claudia Goldstene 2009 Acknowledgements Research and writing, though tasks that often demand solitude, are also pleasurably collaborative and I am delighted to acknowledge the many people who assisted in the crafting of what follows. The numerous archivists and librarians who determinedly and good-naturedly tracked down requests, those both obvious and obscure, deserve special praise. This includes staffs at the Library of Congress, the Gompers Project at the University of Maryland, the New York Public Library, the Hagley Museum and Library, the Houghton Library at Harvard University, the Newberry Library, and the U.S. Department of Labor Library. My trips to these scattered repositories were aided by financial support from the Department of History at the University of Maryland, The Nathan and Jeanette Miller Center for Historical Studies at the University of Maryland, and The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. They also depended on the generosity of those who allowed me to camp in their homes: Hadley and Todd Matarazzo in New York, Andrea Volpe in Cambridge, and Barbara, David, and Tamar Kipper in Chicago. I benefited from the presentation of parts of the dissertation at the following conferences and thank the participants and my fellow panelists for thoughtful commentary and questions: The James A. Barnes Conference, The U.S. Intellectual History Conference, The Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians, and The Association for Political Theory Conference. Though I arrived at the University of Maryland with a vague idea about a dissertation on the ideology of equal opportunity, it took a patient guide to contain the ii breadth of my initial inclinations and redirect them to more manageable limits in a way that still allowed me to say what I wanted and without dampening my enthusiasm for the topic or for history. Gary Gerstle managed to do this while also encouraging me to think more deeply and with greater clarity about my work. While we may not always agree, I am certain that the end product benefited from his insistence that I continue to challenge myself just a bit more. My other committee members proved to be cogent readers and supportive presences throughout the many ups and downs of finishing a dissertation. Ira Berlin and Mary Corbin Sies offered provocative critiques and Saverio Giovacchini and Barbara Weinstein took an interest not only in the dissertation, which entailed reading multiple chapter drafts, but also in me, for which I am grateful. Essential to graduate student life is that community created from the bond over too much reading, paper deadlines, exams, and dissertation work, but most importantly, over a shared passion for intellectual exchange. Finally we began to argue, not about the books of distant authors, but about our own ideas and work. Thomas Castillo, Erik Christiansen, Rachel Donaldson, Debbie Goldman, Jason Guthrie, Thanayi Jackson, Kate Keane, Shari Orisich, Darren Speece, and Jeremy Sullivan all read early drafts of early chapters and offered pointed, yet kind, suggestions for improvement. As important, we shared meals, drinks, basketball and baseball games, and the comradeship that comes from same-boatism. Others contributed to the development of my thinking through animated discussions about politics and history and their intersections. Among these are Patricia Acerbi, Herbert Brewer, Jeff Coster, Linda Noel, and Amy Widestrom. Conversations with Ricardo Lopez not only helped to make sense of the sometimes iii maddening process of completing a dissertation but also reminded me why I chose this path. I cannot imagine having made it through without these wonderful friends. Then there are those family and friends who, while nominally separate from the Department of History at the University of Maryland, offered consistent and crucial support throughout this long journey. These include: Vicki Pearson-Rounds and Bill Rounds, Bob Crongeyer and JR Runion, Hadley and Todd Matarazzo, Patricia Rosenman, Marjorie Goldstene, Lois Goldstene, and Donna Gallo. My immediate family encouraged me in all ways possible. Beth Goldstene, James Goldstene, and Jami Warner Goldstene always let me know that they had my back. I can now answer that ubiquitous question: when are you going to be done? My parents, E. F. and Paul Goldstene, were helpful beyond measure. I am so pleased to recognize their constant support. My father, in particular, seemed always willing to talk through ideas, read chapter drafts, and buoy my spirits. He remains one of my best teachers. And, of course, I must acknowledge the presence in my life of Lily Ying Bao Goldstene who is, indeed, a precious gift. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents v List of Tables vi Introduction 1 Chapter 1: “This Haven of Equal Opportunity to All” 22 Chapter 2: Opportunity as Land Ownership: Booker T. Washington and the Quest for Economic Independence and Political Power 49 Chapter 3: Equal Opportunity in Labor: Producerism and the Knights of Labor 88 Chapter 4: Opportunity Remade: Samuel Gompers and Labor’s Pursuit of Leisure and Consumption 127 Chapter 5: Opportunity Remade: Business Gets Organized 169 Chapter 6: Edward Bellamy and the Re-Imagining of Equal Opportunity 218 Conclusion 264 Bibliography 268 v List of Tables Table 1: Distribution of Wealth and Income in 1890 …………………………………35 vi INTRODUCTION Equal economic opportunity has occupied a central place through much of American history and formed a core component of the nation’s sense of its self: an equal chance, a level playing field, a fair race. Yet it is an idea that, on reflection, is more complex than a simple series of phrases, especially in those moments when it functioned less as a description of economic conditions and more as a political doctrine.1 The ideology of equal opportunity stands as a set of beliefs, upon which people act, about how best to structure economic relations and, following this, social and political relations. Thus ideology is materially represented through conduct that has historical consequences. Life as a race becomes the defining metaphor of the national economic order, where society is a marketplace and the chance to compete the singular achievement of American social structure.2 And success in this competitive marketplace garners political influence. Celebrants of equal opportunity maintain that the nation’s capacity to absorb ever- greater numbers of people into the orbit of upward social mobility has meant an absence of entrenched class conflict and its