Interview with R. Sós, an independent scholar and freelance writer of textbooks and workbooks among other things for K-12 American history ( http://thehistoricpresent.wordpress.com/ )

Interview and Email transcript by Anna Cheng

Time of Interview: December 9 ~ 20

 

Dear Mr. Sós, 

Thank you so much for the reply. Your help is greatly wanted. I hope to continue emailing you any questions my group and I has as we progress along our project. Right now I have a few: 

What do you think was the main factor(s) to the end of child labor? How did it contribute to the diminishing of the practice of child labor? Do you think that a reform group had a greater impact on public opinion/attitude on child labor or other factors instead (i.e. changing times, Great Depression, etc.)? 

 

Hello Anna,

 

Child labor was ended gradually in one sense, and quickly in another. It took years of repeated efforts by progressive lawmakers at the state and federal level to pass laws reducing child labor and then ending it, but considering that children had been working in factories for 100 years by the 1920s and 30s when those laws began to be passed, a couple of decades of work was relatively quick. Many lawmakers did not want to end child labor because the manufacturers who relied on it said ending child labor would 1) raise prices through the roof and 2) create an adult workforce that was more likely to be unionized and to demand fair wages and hours, and safe working conditions, both of which would 3) lead the manufacturers to bankruptcy, thus 4) hurting the state/the nation. But progressive activists—journalists, social workers, lawyers, and more—kept shaming manufacturers and legislators with stories of the horrors of child labor. Uncomfortably for us now, one of the leading arguments against child labor in the south was that it was reducing white children to the status of black Americans, by reducing the white children to virtual slavery.

 

I do think the reform effort was crucial in creating public awareness of the injustice of child labor. Most people were not really aware of the problems with it, and believed it was a helpful way for immigrants to work their way up in the world. When stories of children losing limbs, dying, or living lives of hopeless labor, being abused by overseers, came to light, the public turned against child labor and demanded products made without it. They called the manufacturers’ bluff by paying higher prices for goods made without child labor, and by the 1930s it was well on the way to being a shameful issue of the past.

 

--

 

Dear Mr.  Sós, 

       Thank you so much for your response. Sorry I had to take so long getting back to you. Could you give me more insight about the National Child Labor Committee and your input on the effective of Lewis Hine's photos. I would also like to know about both positive and negative long term effects child labor had on the entire nation. This would help me analyze if the reform groups and lawmakers' efforts were too late to make up for the damage child labor had already inflicted. I am asking for a lot, but in order to proceed with our project, could you also refer some people/experts/contacts to us that we may want to talk to? 

We are also open to any feedback on our project thesis since we will be addressing both sides of the argument:  The National Child Labor Committee was the leading contributor to the passing of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 through its efforts to raise public awareness for child labor and spur legislative laws restricting the practice.  

 

Hello Anna,

 

Again, this is not my field of study, so I'm no expert, but as a U.S. historian I know that the National Child Labor Committee began by urging states to pass laws banning child labor and was thwarted by resistance from southern states (where child labor was seen as a perfect substitute for black slave labor), so it switched its focus to a national law. The NCLC was able to sponsor legislation that passed Congress, as you probably know, but the Supreme Court struck it down as an unconstitutional overstepping of Congress' ability to regulate free trade.

 

During this time, Hine's photos were being published widely, but in my opinion the hurdle to get over there was that Americans at the turn of the 20th century were used to seeing child laborers--after all, Hines just went into the city streets and took photos. These children were not hidden. Child labor was something many Americans had assimilated. It was a shame they were so poor, but at least they were working--that gave them a chance to rise. So they bought papers and shoeshines from ragged kids thinking that someday those kids would be better off because they had the chance to work. As for unfair working conditions, adults had those, too--almost no one had fair pay or working conditions, not even the emerging white-collar office worker. To work was to suffer exploitation--it was as simple as that. Would you take everyone out of the work force? 

 

Many Americans also felt that it was a social matter: if immigrants had more help, if school was made mandatory, if there was legal birth control, if if, if--many other solutions than legislation were put forward. In the era of Big Business, very few people supported Congress making laws that limited the power of business to function as it saw fit. So Hine's photos did not have the impact on his contemporaries that they have on us. At that time, raggedy child workers were just one more problem that seemed like an inevitable price to pay for the continued success of big business.

 

Regarding your thesis, I think the NCLC was a leading contributor; they had the national spotlight. I'm not sure if it was the leading contributor, but it may have been. Here's where you'd need an expert, and I'm afraid I don't know anyone--all my professional contacts are 17th-century people. But if you have found a book that has helped you, look up the author and send them an email--that's what I do! I have been able to have conversations with many people that way. They will not think it's a waste of their time to talk with you.

 

From, 

R. Sos