A 'hard-boiled order': The reeducation of disabled wwi veterans in New York City

Journal of Social History

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2005, Pages

  Gelber, Scott ^a,b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b History of American Civilization   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 26644440902     PISSN: 00224529     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/jsh.2005.0101     Document Type: Review

References (170)

1. Theda Skocpal's work suggests that perceptions of the "rights" of veterans contrasted to a policy discourse around meeting the "needs" of women. Theda Skocpal, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, 1992).
2. For more on the gendering of social welfare policy in this period, see Linda Gordon, Pitied but Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890-1935 (New York, 1994)
3. and Alice Kessler-Harris, In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in the 20th-century America (New York, 2001).
4. Skocpal argues that that support for these Civil war pensions was fueled by the dynamics of a late nineteenth century system of political patronage. She also recognizes the influence of a national sense of moral obligation to veterans. Skocpal, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, pp. 66, 149;
5. David A. Gerber, "Disabled Veterans, The State, and the Experience of Disability in Western Societies, 1914-1950," Journal of Social History 36 (2003), p. 899;
6. Patrick J. Kelly, Creating a National Home: Building the Veterans' Welfare State, 1860-1900 (Cambridge, MA, 1997). For an important reminder that the U.S. government has often failed to fulfill its obligations to veterans
7. see Lewis Milford and Richard Severo, The Wages of War: When American Soldiers Come Home, from Valley Forge to Vietnam (New York, 1989).
8. Kelly, Creating a National Home. Whereas only ten to twenty percent of soldiers were conscripted, roughly seventy percent of soldiers in World War I were drafted. Similar to the concept of the "citizen soldier," Kelly uses the term "martial citizenship."
9. Jennifer Keene, Doughboys, the Great War, and the Remaking of America (Baltimore, 2001).
10. . Cecilia O'Leary, To Die For: The Paradox of American Patriotism (Princeton, NJ, 1999).
11. Soldiers disabled by war have generally been committed activists to veterans' rights in mixed as well as disability-centered organizations. Gerber, "Disabled Veterans," pp. 902, 907, 911-12;
12. K. Walter Hickel, "Medicine, Bureaucracy, and Social Welfare: The Politics of Disability Compensation for American Veterans of World War I," in The New Disability History: American Perspectives, edited by P. Longmore and L. Umansky (New York, 2001).
13. For discussion of these tensions during the progressive era, see Steven Diner, A Very Different Age: Americans of the Progressive Era (New York, 1998)
14. and David M. Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (New York, 1980).
15. The American Legion of New York State also held a series of public hearings in 1921 to investigate the inefficiency of the NYBVE. U.S. House Committee on Education, Charges Against The Federal Board For Vocational Education: Hearings Before The Committee On Education. 66th Congress, 2d sess., 1920, pp. 4, 7;
16. The Vocational Summary (June 1921), p. 29.
17. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 553, 684, 244, 1644;
18. Milford and Severo, The Wages of War, p. 259.
19. In 1923, Federal investigators discovered that NYBVE staff had left approximately 200,000 letters from concerned veterans and their allies unanswered. In February 1920, the New York Evening Post claimed that it took the FBVE six to nine months to process many claims. Veteran rehabilitation was also impeded by corrupt officials within the Harding administration. Milford and Severo, The Wages of War, pp. 247-58;
20. Harold Littledale, "Thousands of Disabled Men Untrained in This District," New York Evening Post, 18 February 1920, p. 1.
21. Milford and Severo, The Wages of War, p. 217;
22. Donald McMurtrie, "Vocational Re-Education of Disabled Soldiers and Sailors," Annual Proceedings of the National Society for Vocational Education (New York, 1918), pp. 51-2;
23. Federal Board for Vocational Education, Annual Report of the Federal Board for Vocational Education (Washington, DC, 1919), pp. 20-1;
24. Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Soldiers and Sailors: Letter From the Federal Board for Vocational Education. 65th Congress, 2d sess., 1918, p. 31;
25. Charges Against The Federal Board For Vocational Education, pp. 468, 834. For a discussion of the relationship between European and American reforms during the progressive era
26. see Daniel Rodgers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (Cambridge, 1998).
27. Some potential trainees were discouraged by the meager $80 stipend provided to veterans in Section 2 training.This sum was hardly sufficient to support an individual in New York City, let alone a family. Most veterans with minor disabilities who were eligible for Section 3 training, also could not afford to take advantage of this benefit. By February of 1920, only 142 New York City veterans had begun Section 3 training. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 316, 693, 948, 1678;
28. Harold Littledale, 'Disabled Soldiers Untrained After 19 Months of Red Tape,' New York Evening Post, 16 February 1920, p. 4.
29. The War Risk Insurance Act established the War Risk Insurance Board (WIRB) in order to administer the financial compensation of wounded veterans. The FBVE evolved out of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, the first federal support for vocational education. Also known as the Sears Bill, the Vocational Rehabilitation Act initially appropriated $2,000,000 to establish the FBVE's Rehabilitation Division. On the FBVE see, A McClure, J. Chrisman and P. Mock, Education for Work: The Historical Evolution of Vocational and Distributive Education in America (Cranbury, NJ, 1985);
30. Herbert Kliebard, Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the American Curriculum, 1876-1946. (New York, 1999);
31. Harvey Kantor, Learning to Earn: School, Work, and Vocational Reform in California, 1880-1930 (Madison, 1988).
32. On the Rehabilitation Act, see Hickel, "Medicine, Bureaucracy, and Social Welfare," p. 239;
33. Federal Board for Vocational Education, Annual Report (1919), pp. 1, 7-18;
34. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 21, 1150, 1463-4, 459, 574;
35. The Vocational Summary (May 1921), p.3.
36. On the development of the vocational guidance profession, see Kantor, Learning to Earn, pp. 150-56;
37. Joel Spring, "Education and Progressivism," History of Education Quarterly 10 (1970), pp. 53-71;
38. Kliebard, Schooled to Work, pp. 163-171.
39. "Summary, Semi-Monthly Training Reports," August through May, 1921, Rehabilitation Division of the Federal Board for Vocational Education and U.S. Veterans Bureau, 1918-28, Records of District and Regional Offices, National Archives and Records Administration, Northeast Region, New York, NY, Record Group 15.5.2, Box 53, "New York [Files]"; Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 539, 732, 972;
40. The Vocational Summary (May 1920), p.1;
41. "Report on Prospective Rehabilitations," January through July, 1924, FBVE Records, Box 30, "Employment"; C.T. Lile to Chief of the Rehabilitation Division, 28 March 1925, FBVE Records, Box 53, "New York [Files]."
42. New York had supplied ten percent of all U.S. overseas forces during W.W.I and served as the nation's most common port of reentry. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 355, 452, 1451, 1764; M.E. Lynch to H.L. Brunson (Memo: "General Situation in New York"), 11 March 1920, FBVE Records, Box 44, "Placement Training-Publicity";
43. "Help for Veterans Asked From Public," The New York Times, 30 August 1923, p.22; William Clark to the Director of the Medical and Rehabilitation Service, 4 March 1924, FBVE Records, Box 30, " Employment"; J.C. Warlow to the Chief of the Rehabilitation Division, 31 January 1924, FBVE Records, Box 30, "Employment." On economic con ditions and labor activism in the World War I era
44. see Joseph McCartin, Labor's Great War: The Struggle for Industrial Democracy and the Origins of Modern American Labor Relations, 1912-1921 (Chapel Hill, 1997)
45. and William J. Breen, Labor Market Politics and the Great War: The Department of Labor, the States, and the First U.S. Employment Service, 1907-1933 (Kent, OH, 1997).
46. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 1438-9.
47. Unions were wary that trade education might serve to institutionalize a system of economic caste and demanded that vocational students be offered a diverse curriculum and the opportunity to transfer freely from one curriculum to another. Some unions were also concerned that federal training might flood the tightening postwar job market and reduce their bargaining power. Union leaders also worried that employers would lever-age federal training initiatives to support their preference for cheaper semi-skilled operatives. International Association of Machinists, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Convention (Washington DC, 1920), p. 103;
48. American Federation of Labor, Proceedings of the Annual Convention (Bloomington, IN: 1918), pp. 237, 320-1;
49. AFL, Proceedings (1921), p. 319;
50. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 383-4, 1600, 229;
51. Ira Katznelson and Margaret Weir, Schooling For All: Class, Race, and the Decline of the Democratic Ideal (New York, 1985); Stillman Benway to H.L. Brunson, 14 May 1920, FBVE Records, Box 44, "Placement Training- Publicity";
52. Breen, "Industrial Training and Craft Dilution in World War I"; The Vocational Summary (May 1921), p. 5;
53. Arthur Griffin to J.A. Chandler (Memo: "Meeting of Central Federated Union") 27 November 1918, FBVE Records, Box 26, "Miscellaneous Correspondence 1918-1919."
54. Gerber, 'Disabled Veterans,' pp. 900-901.
55. Marquis James, "Learning While They Work," American Legion Weekly, 12 September 1919, p. 14;
56. Kennedy, Over Here, p. 248;
57. Charges Against The Federal Board, p. 1853;
58. McMurtrie, "Vocational Re-Education," pp. 58-9.
59. These expectations began to be established even before soldiers returned home. During the six months that elapsed between the armistice and the demobilization of most American soldiers, the Army established the American Expeditionary Forces University at Beaune, France. The AEF University permitted a portion of US overseas forces to study various trades while serving only one hour of regular military duty per day. Speakers at school assemblies regularly boasted of the opportunity that soldiers would have to obtain skilled employment in a bountiful America. Mark Meigs, Optimism at Armageddon: Voices of American Participants in the First World War (New York, 1997), pp. 189-90.
60. The Vocational Summary (May 1921), p.3;
61. Littledale, "Disabled Soldiers Untrained After 19 Months of Red Tape," p.4;
62. "Extract from District 2 Conference," 1 November 1922, FBVE Records, Box 29, "Certification of Graduation-Disbursing."
63. The Vocational Summary (April 1919), p. 6.
64. Charges Against the Federal Board, pp. 452, 487, 1649;
65. The Vocational Summary (October 1918), p.7;
66. The Vocational Summary (June 1921), pp. 29, 34;
67. The Vocational Summary (April 1919), p. 89.
68. U.S. House of Representatives, Vocational Rehabilitation of Returned Soldiers and Sailors, 65th Congress, 2d sess., 1918, p. 2;
69. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 459-60, 628.
70. Uel Lamkin to District Vocational Officers (Memo: "Changes and Extensions of Courses"), 29 October 1919, FBVE Records, Box 26, "Miscellaneous Correspondence 1918-1919"; "Record D2-19753" and "Record D2-25683," 9 March 1920, FBVE Records, Box 44, "Placement Training-Publicity"; M.E. Head to H.V. Stirling (Memo: "Rehabilitation Survey Group, NYC"), 31 December 1924, Box 52, "Mineola - New York [Files]."
71. The post-war depression of 1920-1922 also hampered the efforts of activists to enlist the aid of the federal government. Skocpal, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, pp. 262, 308;
72. Kennedy, Over Here, pp. 250, 287;
73. McCartin, Labor's Great War, pp. 175-191;
74. David Montgomery, "Industrial Democracy or Democracy in Industry?: The Theory and Practice of the Labor Movement, 1870-1925." in Industrial Democracy in America: The Ambiguous Promise edited by N. Lichtenstein and H. Harris (New York, 1993), p. 21.
75. Charges Against The Federal Board, p. 1115;
76. John Cummings, "Reconstruction and Vocational Education," The Vocational Summary (February 1919), p. 6;
77. U.S. House, Vocational Rehabilitation of Returned Soldiers and Sailors, pp. 2, 8, 18;
78. U.S. Senate, Training of Teachers for Occupational Therapy for the Rehabilitation of Disabled Soldiers and Sailors 65th Congress, 2d sess., 1918, p. 60;
79. U.S. War Department, Office of the Surgeon General, Abstracts, Translations, and Reviews of Recent Literature on the Subject of the Reconstruction and Reeducation of the Disabled Soldier, Bulletin No. 1, 1918, p. 63;
80. The Vocational Summary (October 1918), p. 1; Arthur Griffin to the Chief of the Division of Rehabilitation (Memo: "Rulings in Regard to Compensation by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance"), 29 October 1918, FBVE Records, Box 26, "Miscellaneous Correspondence 1918-1919."
81. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 739, 242.
82. Breen, Labor Market Politics and the Great War.
83. Charles Winslow, "Address," Annual Proceedings of the National Society for Vocational Education 1918, p.73;
84. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 313, 1864.
85. Charges Against The Federal Board, p. 379.
86. United States House, Vocational Rehabilitation, p.8;
87. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp.455, 1140, 262-3.
88. Kennedy, Over Here, pp. 259-60, 166.
89. For more on government sponsored repression during W.W.I., see O'Leary, To Die For;
90. U.S. War Department, Abstracts, Translations, and Reviews, p. 63;
91. U.S. House, Vocational Rehabilitation, pp. 2, 5, 8;
92. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 455, 1140, 1316;
93. McMurtrie, "Vocational Re-Education," pp. 56, 73;
94. McClure et al., Education for Work, p. 74.
95. In general, the pioneers of vocational education and vocational guidance had not been shy about limiting the career choices of their advisees. By the turn of the century, coincident with the growth of secondary schooling, the demise of apprenticeship, and the arrival of large numbers of immigrants, advocates of vocational education won increasing acceptance for their agenda. Ultimately, the Smith Act of 1917 endorsed federal funding for vocational education and the notion of the authoritarian guidance counselor was widely accepted. See Katznelson and Weir, Schooling for All;
96. Marvin Lazerson, Origins of the Urban School: Public Education in Massachusetts, 1870-1915 (Cambridge, 1971);
97. Harvey Kantor and David Tyack eds., Work, Youth, and Schooling: Historical Perspectives on Vocationalism in American Education (Stanford, 1982);
98. Kliebard, Schooled to Work;
99. Kantor, Learning to Earn.
100. John Dewey, Democracy and Education: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (New York, 1916), p.140;
101. John Dewey, "Vocational Education in Light of the World War," in John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924, Vol. 11. edited by J.A. Boydston (Carbondale, IL, 1982), p. 54.
102. Kennedy, Over Here, pp. 246-7;
103. Diner, A Very Different Age, pp. 229;
104. Spring, "Education and Progressivism," p., 61, 64.
105. Dewey cited in Diner, A Very Different Age, p. 263;
106. Lippman cited in Kennedy, Over Here, p. 91;
107. Eric Foner, The Story of American Freedom (New York, 1998), p. 181.
108. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 1622, 1139-40.
109. For AEF demographics, see Kennedy, Over Here.
110. "Manual of Employment Objectives," April 1923, FBVE Records, Box 30, "Employment."
111. "Extract from District 2 Conference," 1 November 1922, FBVE Records, Box 29, "Certification of Graduation-Disbursing";
112. FBVE, Annual Report, 1919, vol. II, p. 15;
113. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 607, 599, 1627.
114. On adult education, see Joseph Kett, Pursuit of Knowledge Under Difficulties: From Self-Improvement to Adult Education in America (Stanford, 1994).
115. A racist precedent was established early by the Jim Crow policy of the AEF University in France. Meigs, Optimism at Armageddon, pp. 189-90.
116. On racism in the W.W.I. Army, see Keene, Doughboys, the Great War, and the Remaking of America. Prejudice could also work in the favor of some veterans. Daniel Edwards, for example, was permitted to pursue coursework at Columbia University despite having only completed junior high school. A NYBVE counselor noted that Edwards was "above average in appearance and personality," "gentlemanly," and likely to become "a high-class man."
117. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 1277-80.
118. Charges Against The Federal Board, p. 740;
119. Hickel, "Medicine, Bureaucracy, and Social Welfare," pp. 237, 256-8;
120. Kennedy, Over Here, p. 157;
121. Milford and Severo, The Wages of War, pp. 235-7.
122. Test experts generally believed that workers would be more fulfilled by following jobs for which science said they were suited rather than ones for which they chose on their own. Joel Spring, "Psychologists and the War: The Meaning of Intelligence in the Alpha and Beta Tests," History of Education Quarterly 12 (1972), p. 3;
123. Nicholas Pastore, "The Army Intelligence Tests and Walter Lippman," The Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 4 (1978), pp. 316-17, 324;
124. Kennedy, Over Here, pp. 91, 162-3, 188;
125. Keene, Doughboys, the Great War, and the Remaking of America, pp. 27-28;
126. Kliebard, Schooled to Work, pp. 166-168;
127. The Vocational Summary (June 1921), p. 34;
128. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 2057, 757, 278.
129. By the end of the initial WRIB screening process, doctors rejected over half of the 940,000 compensation claims. Hickel, "Medicine, Bureaucracy, and Social Welfare," pp. 244-51, 255-6;
130. The Vocational Summary (March 1919), p. 9;
131. The Vocational Summary (February 1919), p. 2;
132. The Vocational Summary (March 1919), p.17;
133. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 1626, 2000, 765, 1189, 1205, 348, 2000, 1159, 1179; Arthur Griffin to District Vocational Officer (Memo: "Initial Contact with Navel Hospital at Cape May, NJ"), 12 October 1918, FBVE Records, Box 26, "Miscellaneous Correspondence 1918-1919."
134. M.A. Gadsby, "A Government Program for Disabled Sailors and Soldiers," Annual Proceedings of the National Society for Vocational Education (New York, 1918), pp. 62-3;
135. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 628, 922;
136. McMurtrie, "Vocational Re-Education," p. 59. Similarly, officials worried that too many veterans were seeking to obtain white collar jobs.
137. Keene, Doughboys, the Great War, and the Remaking of America, p. 164.
138. "Extract from District 2 Conference," 1November 1922, FBVE Records, Box 29, "Certification of Graduation-Disbursing";
139. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 1160, 278, 52.
140. F.W. Lavenburg (Memo: "Placement Training"), 27 November 1922, FBVE Records, Box 44, "Placement Training-Publicity"; Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 357, 520, 1598;
141. Littledale, "Disabled Soldiers Untrained After 19 Months of Red Tape," p. 4.
142. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 242, 739.
143. In response to increasing pressure to meet the special needs of adult students, the FBVE established prevocational "Training Centers." At the end of 1921, The Vocational Summary could boast of an enrollment of 9,415 veterans in 145 training centers nationwide.
144. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 1207, 608, 611, 1217;
145. The Vocational Summary (April 1920), p. 22;
146. The Vocational Summary (November 1921), pp. 23-4.
147. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 1333, 414, 1771;
148. The Vocational Summary (May 1921), p. 3.
149. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 295-6, 1075, 611.
150. For a discussion of the gap between mainstream veteran organizations and the perspectives of disabled veterans see Gerber, "Disabled Veterans."
151. Charges Against The Federal Board, p. 49;
152. Littledale, "Disabled Soldiers Untrained After 19 Months of Red Tape," p. 1.
153. Over the course of this period, the average rate of non-cooperation was 31 percent. "Analysis of Recapitulation of Cases Reported Rehabilitated and Still Unemployed," 1924, FBVE Records, Box 30, "Employment."
154. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 129-148.
155. Charges Against the Federal Board Ibid., pp. 418-19.
156. "Eligibility Load," 3 June 1925, FBVE Records, Box 53, "New York [Files]."
157. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 453, 1208.
158. Initially, the FBVE clashed with the more parsimonious War Risk Insurance Board (WRIB). Injuries needed to be confirmed by the WRIB before veterans became eligible for retraining. The WRIB also determined eligibility by comparing prewar income with postwar prospects. Veterans earning within ten percent of their prewar wages were ineligible regardless of injury. Eventually, disability compensation was decoupled from income and linked solely to the extent of injury. Littledale, "Thousands of Disabled Men Un trained," p. 7;
159. Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 1471, 846, 586;
160. Hickel, "Medicine, Bureaucracy, and Social Welfare," p. 239.
161. In a telling demonstration of the gap between the narrow law and the broad desires of certain proponents of transformative vocational reeducation, Congressman Horace Towner (R-IA) pressed Mr. Munroe to stretch the definition even farther, prompting Munroe to respond, "Do I understand, then, that the Congress wishes us to disobey the law?" Charges Against The Federal Board, pp. 1124-5.
162. Charges Against The Federal Board, p. 950;
163. Littledale, "Disabled Soldiers Untrained After 19 Months of Red Tape," p. 1;
164. Meigs, Optimism at Armageddon, p. 202;
165. The Vocational Summary (April 1919), p.3.
166. For a strong assertion of the link between WWI veteran activism and the form of the GI Bill, see Keene, Doughboys, the Great War, and the Remaking of America, p. 205.
167. Like the Rehabilitation Act of 1918, the GI Bill was initially conceived of as an economic recovery measure just as much as a program for individual veterans. While the scope of the legislation was ultimately broadened, the original planning conferences for the GI Bill only proposed to compensate veterans who could demonstrate that the war interrupted feasible prewar educational paths. The GI Bill's expansion of access to education for all veterans is a theme that only emerged in retrospective accounts of the program. Most colleges also adapted their entrance requirements in order to further reduce educational barriers to veterans. Keith Olson, The G.I. Bill, the Veterans, and the Colleges (Lexington, 1974), pp. 6-17, 20, 24, 35.
168. Olson, The G.I. Bill, the Veterans, and the Colleges, pp. 21-22;
169. Keene, Doughboys, the Great War, and the Remaking of America, pp. 199-200, 209.
170. Olson, The G.I. Bill, the Veterans, and the Colleges, pp. 18, 21.