Socioeconomic Divides in the Gilded Age

The decades after the end of the Civil War showed unparalleled change in the American economy. In a short period of time, America rapidly switched from an agrarian society to an industrial one, with increased urbanization and tremendous waves of immigration. From the start of the civil war to the end of the century, manufacturing capital in America was increased tenfold and "wage earners increased in number from 1,300,000 to 5,300,000." (Young 127) The prevailing ideology was that perhaps the United States did not have the lowest crime rate or the highest quality of living out of all the countries in the world, but more dreams came true there than anywhere else. Anybody could become the next Andrew Carnegie, transforming from a poor young boy working as a telegraph messenger to a self-made millionaire, a great captain of industry due to a fierce work ethic and unwavering resolve. America seemed to be brimming with potential, a confidence furthered by the existence of the western frontier, which acted as a safety valve for Americans taking their shot at financial independence.

The feeling existed that one could always drop everything and move out west to start a new, better life, even if this was not a feasible possibility for all. As John Blum describes the immense economic change in America, "'Man became economic man, democracy was identified with capitalism, liberty with property and the use of it, equality with opportunity for gain, and progress with economic gain and the accumulation of capital.'" (Young 128) There existed, however, another side to the story. As Mark Twain implied with his coining of the term "Gilded Age" for the era, America also saw rampant economic and political corruption and gaudy excesses of wealth. While the upper class was richer than ever and a new middle class had emerged, following the blue collar career paths created by new industrial jobs, the lowest class suffered considerably. As George Fitzhugh remarked, slaves were better off than factory workers, because at least their masters guaranteed them food. Factory workers were not property, they were employees that could be fired and hired with ease, and so their interests saw little protection. Two men, and indeed two enemies, captured the contrasting faces of America: William Graham Sumner, through his esteemed essay "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other," preached social Darwinism and condoned a laissez-faire approach to capitalism, while Edward Bellamy highlighted the other side of the socioeconomic divide through his novel Looking Backward, in which he severely criticized capitalism and painted a picture of a utopian socialist state.

In his essay "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other," William Graham Sumner champions social Darwinism, the idea that social existence is a competitive struggle in which the fittest rise to the top and the unfit do not survive. Sumner condones the individual being economically acquisitive, stating that "every man and woman in society has one big duty. That is, to take care of his or her own self. This is a social duty." (Sumner 4) The concentration of wealth is okay by Sumner's standards because the men that can take care of themselves and their wife and their children exist scarcely in American society, and men that can take care of anybody outside of his family and dependents must possess "a surplus of energy, wisdom, and moral virtue beyond what he needs for his own business. No man has this; for a family is a charge which is capable of infinite development." (Sumner 4) Sumner would introduce some elements of Malthusian philosophy in criticizing the lower class, blaming their exploitation on foolish spending on vulgar enjoyments and claiming that by reproducing in such a way as to increase their numbers, they create more competition for the already limited food and resources.

Sumner's particular brand of liberalism is strikingly devoid of one key tenet of classical republicanism, namely the idea of civic virtue. Sumner reduces the idea of civic virtue and consideration for the entire community down to minding other people's business. He says that this carries with it two dangers "First, there is the danger that a man may leave his own business unattended to; and, second, there is the danger of an impertinent interference with another's affairs." (Sumner 4) Sumner compares the humanitarians, or as he calls them, amateur social doctors, to actual amateur physicians, stating that they always begin by questioning how to fix the problem rather than actually diagnosing the problem in the first place and they never consider the efficiency of their remedies.

Sumner's social Darwinism background leads him to believe that charity and welfare simply prolong the existence of unfit individuals in a competitive society. Sumner exaggerates the nonsensical economic state by proclaiming that in this society, "poverty is the best policy," for "if you get wealth, you will have to support other people; if you do not get wealth, it will be the duty of other people to support you." (Sumner 3) Bold literature like that of Sumner's helped to reinforce the idea that Americans should not have to feel guilty for their accumulation of wealth and the tremendous gap between the rich and poor. Accompanied by the Horatio Alger "rags to riches" stories and Teddy Roosevelt's glorification of the "great captains of industry who have built...factories and...railroads," (Roosevelt 3) Sumner and his more popular counterpart Herbert Spencer were able to convince many of the American people to be perfectly content to ignore the grueling, unsafe jobs being carried out by the lower class and the cutthroat tactics being employed by robber barons like Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John Rockefeller to oppress their employees. These men, according to Roosevelt, were heroes, and their wealth was divinely sanctioned.

Sumner also argues for an extremely limited form of government. His predecessor Herbert Spencer "argued that the functions of government had to be limited to the administration of justice and protection against external and internal attack." (Young 130) Spencer adhered to this definition very strictly. He was opposed to "poor laws, state support for education, tariffs, state banking, sanitation supervision, government postal systems, and even protection against medical quacks." (Young 130) Sumner believed that the government owed its citizens very little aside from what Spencer valued above. He believed that the government guaranteed equality of opportunity but not equality of results. "Rights do not pertain to results, but only to chances. They pertain to the conditions of the struggle for existence, not to any of the results of it; to the pursuit of happiness, not to the possession of happiness." (Sumner 8)

The justifications that Sumner and Alger and Roosevelt fabricated to explain the growing socioeconomic divides did not by any means go unanswered. Henry George proposed in his 1885 speech in Burlington, Iowa, "The Crime of Poverty," that we can easily achieve absolute equality by "abolishing taxes that now rest upon capital, labour and improvements, and raising all our public revenues by the taxation of land values." (George 16) Perhaps one of the most influential opponents to Sumner's social Darwinism and laissez-faire approach to economics, however, was Edward Bellamy. Bellamy wrote Looking Backward: 2000-1887 to express his displeasure with the competitive capitalist system of his day. The novel stars Julian West, a nineteenth century Boston aristocrat that time travels between 1887 and 2000.

The use of a time-traveling protagonist allowed Bellamy to create a character that was identifiable and relatable to his audience but could also make observations on the future, namely the socialist utopian establishments of the year 2000. Julia's dialogues with Doctor Leete in the future allow Bellamy to explain the future government and the history of man between 1887 and 2000 in a rational way. Bellamy uses Julian West to analyze the existing problems of the nineteenth century and their solutions. For example, in the opening chapter of the novel Julian compares society to a huge railcar:
"...I cannot do better than to compare society to a prodigious coach which the masses of humanity were harnessed to and dragged toilsomely along a very hilly and sandy road. The driver was hunger, and permitted no passengers who never got down, even at the steepest ascents. These seats on top were breezy and comfortable. Well up out of the dust, their occupants could enjoy the scenery at their leisure, or critically discuss the merits of the straining team. Naturally such places were in great demand and the competition for them was keen, every one seeking as the first end in life to secure a seat on the coach for himself and leave it to his child after him." (Bellamy 4)

Julian goes on to state that with this coach, there are many accidents, and a seat a man has secured might at any time be wholly lost. Bellamy uses this metaphor to show the how the upper class feel privileged and elite and look down upon the lower class, the people that pull their coach, and how they so easily ignore the toils and hardships they know their inferiors must be experiencing.

Bellamy also presents the future economy as being based around publicly-owned capital. He clearly values equality of result over equality of opportunity. Every individual that submits to the utopian society in Bellamy's future does the same amount of work (their hours differ depending on the strenuousness of their occupation) and receives the same amount of pay (distributed to individual credit accounts by the government). Bellamy attempts to show that all of the subtleties required by a competitive market, such as shortages, strikes, and business failures are all wastes of time. Bellamy argues for an efficient economy with publicly-owned capital where every person can have the same standard of living, with well-educated citizens and a variety of choices for employment. Bellamy contrasts this socialist utopia with the mess that is the nineteenth century, with unhappy and uneducated people, where some men live lives of gaudy excess and others live lives of scarcity and poverty.

In Looking Backward, Bellamy knowingly presents the nineteenth century aristocrats with hearts that feel nothing for the impoverished lower class. Based on what Sumner preached, that men ought only take care of themselves and their family and charity is the biggest vice a man can exhibit, we see that Bellamy's fictional account is a frighteningly accurate portrayal of the mercilessness of many members of the upper class during the Gilded Age. Indeed, in Sumner's work "'selfishness is raised to the status of an absolute good.'" (Young 134) Sumner and Bellamy's differing opinions were indicative of the growing socioeconomic divide of their day.

Works Cited

Bellamy, Edward. Looking Backward. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1996.
George, Henry. "The Crime of Poverty." 1 Apr. 1885. 10 Feb. 2007 .
Sumner, William G. "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other." 1903. 10 Feb. 2007 .
Young, James P. Reconsidering American Liberalism. Boulder: Westview P, 1996.