History

1. Identify and discuss the authors thesis Were you convinced by the authors argument
The author strongly attempted to refute previous theories about laws that were enacted during the Progressive Era and thereby argued in favor of a new interpretation of certain historical events and movements.  The basic line of reasoning is that traditional interpretations are both overly simplistic and that these interpretations tend to ignore the relevance of many other actors and events.  The author uses the passage of the Meat Inspection Act as one example and seeks to persuade the reader that there was much more to the inspiration for this law that Sinclairs novel or public pressure.  This leads to the authors basic thesis, which is that Americas Progressive historical era and its reformist tendencies and laws were predictable rather than a new historical direction more particularly, Kolko argues that there were many political, social, and economic pressures interacting over a long period of time which characterized American progressivism and its regulatory legislation rather than a sudden political change of heart.  This thesis is persuasive for two main reasons.  First, the author acknowledges that the traditional interpretation may have some validity.  There is no attempt to hide the fact that Sinclairs novel was quite popular, that it was known about by Roosevelt, and that popular opinion was not especially in favor of the meat packing companies.  This provides an honest basis from which the author can then expound upon the broader causes without dismissing the traditional interpretation one hundred percent.  Second, the author provides a chronology of government regulation and legislation, dealing with products that include more than just meat, and the reader can begin to identify and understand that the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was simply another development in a regulatory reform trend that could be traced back to the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War in 1865.  It should also not be neglected that Europe seemed to have been using health concerns as a political shield in order to insulate its own businesses from American competition.  As a result, and the author documents this very specifically, the meat packing companies had a long history of participating in the articulation of legislation for inspections and related rules.  It is quite fair to argue, as Kolko does, that Upton was at best a tangential cause and perhaps very minor when viewed in the larger historical and commercial context.

2. Discuss the most important new information you learned about American history from the article.
    Although I learned many things from this article, the most important thing that I learned was how American laws and policies could be influenced by other countries and the international economy.  A careful reading of the text suggests that American companies and the American government were frightened by the many bans and restrictions that were coming from Europe as early as 1879 when Italy protested the quality of American meat exports.  France followed in 1881 and the growing trend was for European countries to hide behind a health scare in order to protect their own meat companies.  The implication is that Congress and President Roosevelt were compelled to pass legislation more by international economics than by a single piece of socialist advocacy.  The American economy might have been worse off had these international issues not been settled, and  they were settled with the passage of legislation in which allowed the American government to certify and therefore legitimize meat exports.  Private industry and the government worked very closely together.

3. Describe how the book reinforced or challenged ideas about American history that you have learned from the textbook and other readings assignments
    This book did challenge the common idea that morals guide the formation of laws in the United States.  This is not meant to suggest that moral principles are not relevant, for they are to a minor extant as was seen in the public reception to Uptons novel, but what really drove forward serious laws was the historical moment when commercial interests and national security concerns matched at an appropriate moment.  The threat posed by protectionist European markets created similar interests for both the meat packers and the federal government.  This may explain why it took until 1906 for this more comprehensive type of law to be passed.  One might even hypothesize that a convergence of commercial and national security interests equals new legislation.