Ohio History Journal

  • 1
  •  
  • 2
  •  
  • 3
  •  
  • 4
  •  
  • 5
  •  
  • 6
  •  
  • 7
  •  
  • 8
  •  
  • 9
  •  
  • 10
  •  
  • 11
  •  
  • 12
  •  
  • 13
  •  
  • 14
  •  
  • 15
  •  
  • 16
  •  
  • 17
  •  
  • 18
  •  
  • 19
  •  
  • 20
  •  
  • 21
  •  
  • 22
  •  

Cleveland's

New Stock Lawmakers

and Progressive Reform

by John D. Buenker

During the highly productive progressive era of the early 1900's Ohioans

enacted a myriad of reforms designed to cope with the serious political,

economic, and social problems of the day. Included in their efforts was

the updating of the state constitution more attuned to the complexities

of twentieth century life. The contributions made to this record by such

eminent reformers as Tom L. Johnson, Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones,

Brand Whitlock, James M. Cox, and Judson Harmon have been discussed

by a variety of scholars. These leaders, with few exceptions, came from

families of long residence in the United States, were well-educated, of

comfortable circumstances, and were influenced by the humanitarian and

religious philosophies of traditional America; that is, they were in the

category of the genteel reformers identified by such historians as Richard

Hofstadter and George Mowry.1

A careful consideration of the era in Ohio also reveals that the reform

impulse emanated from another, but far different source; namely, from

the representatives of Cleveland's large recent immigrant population. Like

many of their constituents, the Lake City's lawmakers were preponderantly

either immigrants themselves or descended from fairly recent arrivals, were

of other than English ancestry, professed religions which were largely

unknown in colonial times, and came from working class environments.

Yet, they made a highly significant contribution to the success of pro-

gressive reform in the Buckeye State.

NOTES ON PAGE 154