|
|
Although official
numbers mislead, reliable estimates suggest that in 1933, about one-third
of the Unites States' workforce found itself unemployed, and the average family
income had fallen nearly forty percent since 1929 (Elder 19-20).1 By December,
102,000 dependent and neglected children were placed in foster care and an
additional 140,000 in orphanages (Morton 438). Thousands of others were forced
into early labor to help support their struggling families. Many dropped out
of school. Some lacked clothes to keep them warm on the walk there while others
headed to the work fields instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Living in a
country founded on Puritan principles of "self-reliance and individual
initiative," Americans considered the despair of the nation's children--innocents
who had not yet inherited the heritage of moral responsibility--a challenge
to their fundamental belief system (Watkins 61). White, protestant, middle-class
culture regarded personal responsibility and hard work as the highest of virtues
and thought poverty a direct result of an indolent work ethic. After the 1929
stock market crash, conservative President Hoover adopted the moral-responsibility
mantra as official policy. Historian William Stott reports: "When, at
Senator Robert Wagner's insistence, the Congress of 1930 counted the unemployment
in the U.S. and found there to be 3,187,947, [President] Hoover 'corrected'
this figure down to 1,900,000 by cutting out those whom he judged only seasonally
unemployed and those whom he decided did not seriously want work" (71).
Shiftlessness, in other words, accounted for nearly half of the unemployed.
Conservatives
viewed the downturn as part of a natural economic cycle that would eventually
rectify itself. To interfere would threaten both the recovery process and
the spirit of American resiliency. Writing about the early twentieth-century
American mindset, R.H. Watkins claims: "Hard work, honesty, and independence,
they believed utterly, had brought this country to the forefront of nations,
had built a breed of men
who had taken up the institutions of the founding
fathers and made them the wonder of the world. Anything that might weaken
the strength of that tradition would weaken the very character of America
and was, by definition, evil. Government charity, especially, by robbing people
of initiative, would be the very embodiment of error" (61). Therefore,
rather than provide direct-assistance programs, the Hoover administration
encouraged local and national, private charities to provide any necessary
relief. Many agreed with the President's agenda, and even the Red Cross refrained
from offering assistance on a national level, turning the problem over to
local and state chapter chairpersons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still,
while Republicans waited for the nation to heal itself, helpless children--innocent
victims who could be accused of neither laziness nor moral irresponsibility--continued
to suffer and often worse than their adult parents. Perhaps for this reason,
public sentiment toward morality shifted, and as the election of 1932 indicated,
the majority of Americans embraced a spirit of community outreach in the form
of government-sponsored welfare programs. To be sure, New Deal opponents abounded,
but overall a sense of social responsibility defeated zealous adherence to moral
platitudes (McElvaine 206). Emotions overcame, or rather mingled with, politics.
Of course federal programs, including overt propaganda efforts, facilitated
this shift, guiding public opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
Farm Security Administration, in particular, produced artfully framed images
that manipulated both the nation's increasing sentimentalism and long-held conceptions
of childhood to sway the middle class to support President Roosevelt's federally
mandated relief efforts. Photographs such as Dorothea Lange's "Migrant
mother" and Walker Evans' "Child in back yard" contradicted previously
held Puritan ideals by suggesting that people often got less than what they
deserved, and, in such situations, the government had a responsibility to provide
what was lacking. Many FSA pictures focused on poverty-stricken children, and,
in conjuring up ideals of innocence, these effectively eradicated notions of
the poor as evil people. |
|
|
|
1In
September 1932, a lengthy article in Fortune drolly titled "No One Has
Starved" asserts: "The director of the President's Organization on
Unemployment Relief, Mr. Walter S. Gifford of the American Telephone and Telegraph
co., was forced to acknowledge before a subcommittee of the Senate in January,
1932, that he did not know, nor did his Organization know, how many persons
were out of work and in need of assistance in the U.S. nor even how many persons
were actually receiving aid at the time of his testimony." Based on the
research of its writers, the magazine hypothesized the number to be 25 million. |
|
|