Results for Uses of the Past

Memo to America, Re: Welfare in the Olden Days

July 24, 2013
Gabriel Loiacono 
 
One evening, chatting with friends from church, one asked me what kind of history I focused on. I told him: the history of welfare in early America.  He said: what welfare in early America?

"The drunkard's progress, or the direct
road to poverty, wretchedness & ruin," 1826.
Courtesy of the Library of Congress.
I find myself having a conversation like that one more and more these days.  Whether on the left or the right politically, high school grads or Ph.D.s, most Americans I talk to assume that welfare is a creation of the twentieth century: midwifed by Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon B. Johnson.  Those hearty, independent minutemen of the Revolutionary period, they assume, either made the poor find work or relied only on churches for charity. 

Occasionally, this assumption is voiced explicitly in national, political discourse.  For example, in a famous September 12, 2011 Republican Presidential Primary debate, Representative Ron Paul described assistance to the poor in the past thus: “Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it.”  Less off-the-cuff, respectable-looking websites will tell you that charity was almost entirely private before FDR, aside from a few dark and dingy poorhouses, which were more effective at driving inmates out than keeping them comfortable.  And it is not only critics of welfare who think this; one can find defenders of welfare describing the U.S.A. as essentially without welfare before FDR.[1]

More often, this assumption is implicit.  You can see this in recent discussions of food stamp policy and the Farm Bill.  When both critics and defenders of welfare policy bring history into the argument, they usually head back to the 1960s.  Occasionally, they reach back to the 1930s.  They almost never go further back in time.  On both sides, the assumption is that prior to the New Deal, there was no welfare to discuss.  Thus, these are the good old days or the bad old days depending on what you think about welfare today. 

It is for this reason that I fantasize about writing the following memo:

MEMORANDUM

TO: The American People
FROM: A Historian
CC: Candidates, Think Tanks, Warriors of the Internet Comment Boards 
SUBJECT: Um, actually there was welfare when the United States was founded


I would go on, of course, to flesh this statement out with some background, evidence, and precision.  I would point out that poor laws came to North America almost with the first British settlers, and that a large welfare state developed in almost every English municipality.  I would cite figures showing that poor relief comprised more than half of most municipalities’ budgets before the 1820s, when school and road costs grew large enough to match poor relief.  I would feel compelled to mention that poor relief could mean a poorhouse, but more often some combination of cash, food, clothes, firewood, doctor’s attention, medicine, or even full-time nursing care.  I would highlight how significant local taxes were to most early Americans, compared with much lower state taxes and almost non-existent federal taxes. 
"Publicly-owned poor houses like the Dexter Asylum
in Providence, Rhode Island did not come cheaply."
Courtesy of the New York Public Library.

This would lead to the obvious comparisons.  Americans spent more than half of their taxes on poor relief when George Washington was president, compared to 12% on the federal “safety net” today, or 55% if you include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.  Unlike today’s contributors to Social Security and Medicare, however, most taxpayers (read: property owners) in 1789 would not have expected to benefit from poor relief in their lifetimes.  They could depend on it, though, if they ever met with a financial catastrophe.  I would almost certainly quote historian Elna Green’s witticism, that so many grocers, doctors, wood-hewers, etcetera made money from the town by helping the poor that the poor law system should be called the “welfare/industrial complex.” [2]

Finally, I would point out one big difference between early America and the present: Today’s welfare is largely federal while early America’s was largely municipal.  In fact, I think the local nature of early American welfare is the reason why so many policy analysts overlook welfare’s past.  They just don’t look at the state and local levels of government. 

My fantasy memo is not a prelude to some specific policy prescription for the present day.  I just wish that when we do bring history to the argument, we use a reasonably correct version.  As an historian writing about pre-Civil War poor relief, I find myself cringing almost every time the history of welfare surges into public discourse.  Usually, there is a 300-year hole in the story.  For colonial American and U.S. history, that is a pretty big hole!

Surely, though, I am not alone among historians.  What about the rest of you? What makes you cringe?  You historians who see your subjects of expertise routinely misrepresented, what do you do?  What is your responsibility?  How do you lend your expertise in a helpful way?

_____________________

[1] On respectable-looking websites, see “The Poor in America Before the Welfare State,” at Intellectual Takeout: Feed Your Mind www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/sociology-and-culture/poor-america-welfare-state.  For a defender of welfare on the non-existent past of welfare, see Charles Michael Andres Clark, “The Truth Deficit: Four Myths About Deficit Spending,” in Commonweal July 12, 2011. 

[2] Elna C. Green, This Business of Relief: Confronting Poverty in a Southern City, 1740-1940, p. 1.
Memo to America, Re: Welfare in the Olden Days Memo to America, Re: Welfare in the Olden Days Reviewed by Joseph Landis on July 24, 2013 Rating: 5

Accurate History for Activists

May 27, 2013
Dan Allosso

I spent last weekend in the Twin Cities, doing a radio interview about my book and giving a talk on freethought history at the monthly meeting of the Minnesota Atheists.  At roughly

the same time, Susan Jacoby was a featured speaker at the second annual Women in Secularism conference in Washington, DC.  A couple of people live-blogged Jacoby’s talk (here and here). Reading these transcripts and thinking about my own weekend as a presenter has changed my perspective on the role of historians in public discourse.

According to a bio produced for Bill Moyers’ website on PBS, Susan Jacoby

began her writing career as a reporter for THE WASHINGTON POST, is the author of five books, including WILD JUSTICE, a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Awarded fellowships by the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the New York Public Library's Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers, she has been a contributor to THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE NATION, TomPaine.com and the AARP BULLETIN, among other publications. She is also director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York and lives in New York City.

Although she’s not a professional historian, Jacoby has tons of credibility in the literary world.  Also in the secularist world and the liberal intellectual world.  Her recent books, Freethinkers, The Age of American Unreason, and The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought, are all required reading for in-the-know secularists.  I’ve read the first and third, the other one is on my to-read list.  Jacoby has done a lot to remind contemporary readers of the existence of freethinkers in American history (especially Robert Ingersoll).  So I was a little surprised when I saw the live-bloggers recorded Jacoby saying something like this:

2:04: There have been no secular activists who have made women’s rights an issue, except insofar as they are threatened by radical Islam. Telling the truth about radical Islam and women is important, but we need secularists to understand that discrimination and violence against women are hardly confined to the Islamic world...Robert Ingersoll is the only male secularist who is an exception to this. 

While Jacoby’s point that secularists need to extend their understanding of oppression is undoubtedly correct, her historical example couldn’t be more incorrect.  Throughout history, freethinkers have more often than not linked secularism with women’s and family issues.  In addition to the many women freethinkers (Mary Wollstonecraft, Frances Wright, Eliza Sharples Carlile, Ernestine Rose, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc.) there have been many male freethinkers who worked for women’s rights.  In America, Dr. Charles Knowlton, Robert Dale Owen, and Abner Kneeland come easily to my mind (because I was talking to the MN Atheists about them while Jacoby was talking to the Secularist Women); in England Richard Carlile, Francis Place, and John Stuart Mill are also easy choices.  Dig beneath the surface layer of famous names, and there are many more.

The point is that Jacoby’s credibility and authority (and the audience’s sympathy with her point about understanding oppression) allowed her to insert bad history into the conference’s stream of consciousness.  It resurfaced later, in discussions like the one about whether Ingersoll would have accepted an invitation to speak at the conference, and in a general impression that secularism has generally NOT been particularly friendly to women and their issues.  The inaccuracy of this view hinders contemporary secular feminists in their efforts to identify freethought with the rights of women and oppressed minorities, and not just the “Rights of Man.”  But the authority of historical expertise (Heather Cox Richardson recently referred to it as the “oxygen”) belongs to the person at the podium — and all too often that person is not a historian.

I’m sure misleading her audience was the opposite of Susan Jacoby’s intent.  She seems to have been arguing that today’s secular women need to push beyond the movement’s history and win new victories of their own.  And this is good advice.  But pushing forward might not seem as difficult, if women were aware of the efforts and sacrifices made by earlier secularists in the same cause.  Today’s secular women might gain valuable information as well as inspiration, if the story of earlier secular feminists was better known.  So I’ve signed on with Secular Woman to tell the stories of secular feminists in the past.  I’ll be writing a monthly series of short biographies of secular women.  Secular Woman is an activist organization, so hopefully these stories will be useful to the women Jacoby was urging to continue the fight.
Accurate History for Activists Accurate History for Activists Reviewed by Joseph Landis on May 27, 2013 Rating: 5
ads 728x90 B
Powered by Blogger.