The story of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire is multidimensional. The tragedy, which caused
the death of 146 garment workers, highlighted many of the issues that defined urban life
in turn-of-the-century America. These topics include, but are not limited to labor unions,
immigration, industrialization, and factory girls working in sweatshop conditions in
Manhattan’s garment district. March 25, 1911 became a benchmark moment in the
Progressive Era that ultimately resulted in drastic changes in labor standards for
factories across New York City, and later the nation. However, with the horrifying death
toll, mostly young immigrant women, it is a story that highlights early 20th century labor
activism, the power of big business, and the emerging voice of women, still silenced at
the voting booths. Through this tragic event, we can learn about not only the women
who died but the movement that they provoked and the conditions of labor that they
forever changed. For this assignment you will be looking at a short video about the
Triangle Shirtwaist Fire as well as an article about effective change after this event.
Watch the video:
Remembering the Triangle Shirtwaist fire:
http://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/legacy/legislativeReform.html
1. Why did this particular event, quite a ways into the Progressive movement,
create such a national impact leading to wider change?
2. On the eve of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, what were the conditions of the
sweatshops of Manhattan in 1911 and how were individuals seeking change?
To what extent had change been achieved in terms of workplace safety by
Progressivism before the fire? (cite examples).
3. Why is reform necessary for democracy? Cite evidence from the sources,
chapter reading or your knowledge of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire.
The working conditions of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory epitomized the poor conditions and hardships many immigrants factory workers were subjected to as they attempted to earn a living. This infamous event was a catalyst for progressive reformers as it created public awareness of the poor working conditions that were imposed on factory workers. The catastrophe fueled the union movement as they sought to improve working conditions in America. As civil and criminal trials developed as a result of the Triangle Factory fire, legislative reform grew out of the now clearly apparent need to prevent industrial accidents. with 146 immigrants young women of varying age and ethnicity losing their lives, the Triangle Factory disaster symbolized the brutality exhibited by factory owners and created political attention and the demand for change in the working and sanitary conditions of industrial workers.
rgues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed.
Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).
Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised.