One of the most heartbreaking issues during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was child labor. In the book Give Me Liberty! it is stated that “Reformers portrayed child labor as a menace to white supremacy, depriving white children of education they would need as adult members of the dominant race.”l While this was true, child labor was much more than that. More than 2 million children under the age of 15 were sent to work in order to make extra money for their families. This affected not only members of the white supremacy, but, quite obviously, also the children themselves. During the early 1900s, journalists used the power of the press to address the problem of child labor. Although many different protests against child labor were under way, passionate writers for newspapers both little and large, throughout the country, brought real change to the horrible situation. The public eye, because of newspaper coverage, was turned to the issue of child labor, resulting in a general societal distaste and outrage for child labor, which resulted in the passing of several child labor laws that altered the way the country ran its businesses and factories.
One such newspaper, The Day Book, printed articles between 1912 and 1917, drawing attention to the issue of child labor, reporting the changing attitude of the nation towards the issue, and even encouraging people and the government to do something about child labor. This newspaper, along with others across the nation, helped stop child labor. Though it wasn’t an official protest, the publication of newspapers was a series of events that, along with occurrences such as murders and convenient avoidance of laws, led to outrage in America and caused incredible change and reform for child labor. In 1912 very few people saw child labor as a problem. Thusly, reporters passionate about the issue employed very drastic tactics to draw attention to the atrocities of child labor. One such tactic was using fear. Several reporters tried to frighten their audience, thinking that if society feared the effects of child labor enough, they would demand that the government put a stop to it. One such reporter for The Day Book wrote, “Child labor means racial degeneracy, perpetuation of poverty, the enlargement of illiteracy, the increase of crime, the lowering of the wage scale and the swelling of the army of the unemployed.” This writer, Mrs. H. H. Fleisher, forced America to acknowledge the long-term effects of child labor. Although her article had few immediate effects, when seen with the swarm other articles written throughout the following years, Fleisher’s and others’ articles had profound effects. A man named Herman Rosenthal was killed 1914. Three of the four New York gunmen who paid the death penalty for his murder were child laborers. The first man was an errand boy when he was 13. The second man was an apprentice to a bookbinder and then worked for a tinsmith. The third man worked at an apartment store when he was very young.
An article published in the same newspaper the next day said that an investigation conducted of 269 murders in the United States revealed that 90 percent of the murders were committed by people who had gone to work before they were 15; and 55 percent of the murderers started working before they were 12.5 Both articles brought attention to the fact that many child laborers, because of their miserable childhoods, became violent when they grew up. None of the children who worked before age 15 knew a life that didn’t involve working to help their families survive. They must have had very little time to play, and would have thus lacked social skills that come through natural interaction with children their age. All sorts of effects from working at such a young age would have easily led to violent behavior as adults. With the spotlight brought to the issue of child labor by the murder of Rosenthal, many journalists took the opportunity to add their opinions to the mix and write more articles about child labor. Many decided to take a different spin on the topic and suggest other consequences of child labor.
127 our experts are availableright now
Threatening America with the moral consequences of child labor, a journalist quoted Jane Addams and wrote, “It is bad for parents to live on the earnings of their children. It produces an unnatural relation. It makes the child independent of parental authority and liable to acts of lawlessness and ignorance that only parental authority can prevent.” In the early 1900s society was extremely intent on doing everything the moral and righteous way. To think that some of their actions were the cause of something indecent (such as children disrespecting their parents) would have shaken the people to their cores. Jane Addams appealed to the housewives of America and warned them that child labor caused exactly that an unnatural relationship between the child and the parent where the child has the authority and thus, refuses to be taught and raised properly—indecent and unrighteous behavior. Jane Addams went on to pose the idea that child labor is bad for business and the economy. “It is bad for the manufacturers who exploit children and child labor. The products of these factories are the poorest in quality and only by the abolishment of child labor will they be rendered better and more saleable in the market.”7 She, along with many other writers and child labor reform activists, was able to voice arguments for a wide range of people. This is a large part of why newspapers were so effective in the journey to putting a stop to child labor—they reached everyone because newspapers, at the time, were one of the only means of learning about current events and were thus very popular; and journalists for the newspapers were able to write articles, or even multiple ideas within one article, that appealed to all sorts of people, whether they were bankers or housewives. By 1915 there were already laws in some states putting a ban on child labor, but many of them were ignored or worked around.
A writer brought attention to the fact that canning factories were often conveniently left out of the legislation regarding child labor. “Many comfortable persons do not care to know that state legislation has not protected little children from exploitation. There are, in fact, a dozen states with very good child labor laws—from which the canning industries are carefully exempted!”8 Factory owners or businessmen often publicly supported the ban on child labor, but when it affected their business, they snuck under the radar and ignored the laws or, like the canning factories, simply avoided being included in the laws. Several newspapers, the Chicago Tribune and the Manufacturer’s News, argued over whether or not manufacturers and other child labor exploiters were sincere when they said they supported the child labor laws. A journalist for The Day Book wrote, “It is strange how one’s glasses are smoked when one’s interests are affected.”’ Between 1915 and 1916 child labor laws were in place, but they weren’t very effective. The Daily Book brought attention to this and tried to help the public see the underlying issues with the laws. By September of 1916 enough attention had been brought to child labor for the federal government to finally start trying to prevent it child labor. The Day Book reported this: “President Wilson today signed the child labor bill,” and then quoting Wilson, “I am so glad to have had my small part in this…It will mean much to the health and vigor of the country.”10 At last, the newspapers had swayed the public against child labor enough for the public servants to feel the need to take action and to see how big an effect the banishment of child labor would have on the wellbeing of the nation.
Things only progressed from there. Public outrage grew, and American society began to completely turn its back on child labor. More and more people started voicing their opinions about the problem. One article told the story of a pastor who “quit church” as a protest against child labor in his area: “…he told employers in his flock that to overwork child labor was to break the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill.’»ll The fact that a pastor in the 1900s voiced his opinion about child labor to his congregation showed the growing public disgust and anger towards child labor. In the 1900s Christian values were extremely important; this pastor taught that child labor went against the teaching of the Bible, and thus, basic Christian values. If the pastors were teaching against child labor, certainly it was a topic of great importance. An anti vivisectionist also wrote in a later edition of The Day Book, listing child labor under an article titled “Evil Customs.”12 People of all walks of life were protesting child labor through the newspaper. Between 1916 and 1922, two federal laws were passed trying to put a stop to the selling of products of child labor between states. 13 As written in a January, 1916 copy of The Day Book, “Evils of child labor and its resulting vices, low wages, have been pointed out and continuously hammered at.”14 Because of newspapers, the public was made aware of the atrocities of child labor. This caused so much outrage that the public effectively pressured government officials to pass laws to stop child labor. The newspapers were a form of protest in and of themselves that, along with a series of events across the country, eventually resulted in drastic changes with regards to child labor.
