1. This is a quotation from Riordan, William, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1963, orig. 1905)Google Scholar, as cited in Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origin of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 98.Google Scholar

2. See especially Mink, Gwendolyn, “The Lady and the Tramp: Gender, Race, and the Origins of the American Welfare State,”Google Scholar and Nelson, Barbara Jean, “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State: Workmen's Compensation and Mothers' Aid,” both in Gordon, Linda, ed., Women, The State, and Welfare (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), 92–122 (Mink) and 123–151 (Nelson).Google Scholar

3. Shefter, Martin, “Party, Bureaucracy, and Political Change in the United States,” in Maisel, Louis and Cooper, Joseph, ed., Political Parties: Development and Decay (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1978), 214–218.Google Scholar Skocpol discusses patronage bureaucracy in chap. 1 and quotes Shefter, 74.

4. Two of Linda Gordon's essays are rich with details of the kinds of jobs women obtained – and created for themselves – in the Progressive era, though political/economic incorporation of women is certainly not the point of either article. See Gordon, , “Social Insurance and Public Assistance: The Influence of Gender in Welfare Though in the United States, 1890–1935,” American Historical Review 97 (02 1992): 19–54Google Scholar; and Gordon, , “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890–1945,” Journal of American History, 78 (09 1991): 559–590.Google Scholar

5. See Gordon, , “Black and White Visions of Welfare,”Google Scholaribid.

6. This passage from Rhetta Child Dorr is quoted twice by Skocpol, once in the Introduction (21) and again in chap. 6 (331). See Dorr, Rhetta Childe, What Eight Million Women Want (Boston: Small, Maynard, and Co., 1910), 327Google Scholar; “race improvement,” 330.

7. Gwendolyn Mink makes this point strongly in “The Lady and the Tramp,” op. cit. [note 2]. That Negroes were biologically, medically, mentally, and morally inferior to whites was a staple idea in Progressive-era medical science and social science. On medical science, see Jones, James, Bad Blood: The Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment (New York, Free Press, 1993, orig. 1981)Google Scholar, esp. chapter 2 and citations therein; on social and medical science, see Hoffman, Frederick, Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro (New York, Macmillan Co., published for the American Economic Association, 1896).Google Scholar

8. See Dyer, Thomas G., Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), esp. chapter 2.Google Scholar

9. Heclo, Hugh, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

10. Orren, Karen, Belated Feudalism: Labor, the Law and Liberal Development in the U.S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

1. One of the first historians to point to women's role in America's political transformation was Baker, Paula in “The Domestication of Politics: Women and American Political Society, 1780–1920,” American Historical Review 89 (1985): 620–47Google Scholar; rpt. in Gordon, Linda, ed., Women, the State, and Welfare (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990).Google Scholar Robyn Muncy explored women's contributions more fully in Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890–1935 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).Google Scholar See also Koven, Seth and Michel, Sonya, eds., Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States (New York: Routledge, 1993)Google Scholar, esp. Koven, and Michel, , “Introduction: ‘Mother Worlds,’”Google Scholar and Sklar, Kathryn Kish, “The Historical Foundations of Women's Power in the Creation of the American Welfare State, 1830–1930Google Scholar; and Ladd-Taylor, Molly, Mother-Work: Women, Child Welfare, and the State, 1890–1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994).Google Scholar

2. A number of studies of men and masculinity have appeared recently; two useful collections are Carries, Mark and Griffen, Clyde, eds., Meanings for Manhood: Constructions Masculinity in Victorian America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990)Google Scholar; and Kimmel, Michael S. and Messner, Michael A., eds., Men's Lives (New York: Macmillan, 1989).Google Scholar For the United States, the first full-length study is Rotundo, E. Anthony, American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era (New York: Basic Books, 1993).Google Scholar Also relevant is White, Kevin, The First Sexual Revolution: The Emergence of Male Heterosexuality in Modern America (New York: New York University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

3. See Kelly, Patrick, “Creating a National Home: The Postwar Care of Disabled Union Soldiers and the Beginnings of the Modern State in America,” Ph.D. dissertation (New York University, 1992).Google Scholar

4. On the administration of pensions to women, see McClintock, Megan, “Shoring Up the Family: Civil War Pensions and the Crisis of American Domesticity,” paper delivered at the American Historical Association meetings,Chicago, 1991Google Scholar; and Holmes, Amy E., “‘Such Is the Price We Pay’: American Widows and the Civil War Pension system,” in Vinovskis, Maris, ed., Toward a Social History of the American Civil War: Exploratory Essays (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

5. See Goodwin, Joanne, “Gender, Politics, and Welfare Reform: Mothers' Pensions in Chicago, 1900–1930,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Michigan, 1991).Google Scholar

6. White, , First Sexual Revolution, p. 9.Google Scholar Michael S. Kimmel made a similar argument in “The Contemporary ‘Crisis’ of Masculinity in Historical Perspective,” in Brod, Harry, ed., The Making of Masculinities: The New Men's Studies (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987), 137ff.Google Scholar

7. Lipschultz, Sybil, “Social Feminism and Legal Discourse: 1908–1923,” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 2, 1 (Fall 1989): 131–160.Google Scholar

8. See Michel, Sonya and Rosen, Robyn, “The Paradox of Maternalism: Elizabeth Lowell Putnam and the Politics of State Expansion in the Progressive Era,” Gender & History 4, 3 (Autumn 1992): 364–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

1. Piven, Frances Fox, “Review,” American Political Science Review, 87 (09 1993): 791.Google Scholar

2. Truman, David B., The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951), 23.Google Scholar

3. Truman, , The Governmental Process, 23.Google Scholar

4. Truman, , The Governmental Process, 24.Google Scholar

5. Truman, , The Governmental Process, 34, 37.Google Scholar

6. Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 47–48, 55, 58.Google Scholar

7. Lowi, Theodore J., The End of Liberalism, 2nd ed (New York: Norton, 1979).Google Scholar

8. Stretton, Hugh, The Political Sciences: General Principles of Selection in Social Science and History (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 326–327, 215.Google Scholar

9. Bensel, Richard Franklin, Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859–1877 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Giddens, Anthony, The Nation-State and Violence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Manicas, Peter T., War and Democracy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989)Google Scholar; and Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1990 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990).Google Scholar

10. Two of the most recent instances in this still-fresh, if decades-old, conversation, are Greenstone, J. David, The Lincoln Persuasion: Rethinking American Liberalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar, and Smith, Rogers M., “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America,” American Political Science Review, 87 (09 1993): 549–566.Google Scholar