Since the American Civil War ended in 1865, the federal government’s position has undergone significant change. Following the bloodiest war to ever be fought on American soil, the federal government was given enormous new powers to handle the social, political, and economic upheavals of this quickly industrializing country.[1] Over the following decades, the central government in Washington, D.C., was subjected to an increasing number of obligations and expectations due to the traumas of significant industrialization, economic collapses, foreign wars, internal social movements, and other events.[2] Even if opinions on federal authority are now divided along ideological lines, the state has been growing unabatedly since Reconstruction.
In reaction to the profound changes brought about by industrialization, the federal government started its first significant phase of growth in the late 1800s. Railroads, steel mills, oil companies, industrial facilities, and other establishments rose quickly, providing opportunities and disruptions that the states and ordinary citizens could not resolve on their own. As a result, the government started to regulate and manage the industrial sector more centrally and quickly. For instance, the first government organization tasked with regulating railroads and other businesses involved in interstate commerce was established in 1887 with the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission.[3] Similarly, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 gave the federal government previously unheard-of authority against massive monopolies and corporate trusts by outlawing any “contract, combination…or conspiracy in restraint of trade.” This statute would lay the groundwork for attempts to undermine confidence in the early 1900s.[4] These actions represented a significant shift from America’s customarily liberal and laissez-faire economic practices. However, many were persuaded by the quick speed of change that order and justice could only be restored by a more robust federal presence.
Building upon these progressive underpinnings, the Great Depression crisis would significantly increase the extent of government authority over social and economic matters. Following the 1929 stock market crash, which precipitated the Great Depression, presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted a wave of unprecedented national government expansion. In an attempt to support essential sectors, Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation provided emergency loans to firms, banks, and railroads. However, when these stopgap measures did not work, FDR realized far more drastic action was required. After he took office in 1933, the federal government implemented a number of New Deal initiatives that not only increased stimulus spending but also established whole new bureaucracies dedicated to providing relief, rehabilitation, and reform to disadvantaged populations.[5] The federal government’s responsibilities to provide economic stability and oversee corporate transactions were extended permanently by organizations like Social Stability, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and others.[6] The New Deal changed Americans’ perceptions of what the government owed to its citizens by providing them with governmental support during their worst periods of unemployment and hunger.
The national bureaucracy and economy grew even more quickly after World War II. The government used centralized organizations like the War Production Board to oversee industrial production, ration limited resources, enforce price restrictions, and other measures in order to plan the massive mobilization required for triumph abroad. More influence over the U.S. economy was ever exerted by Washington, D.C., which persuaded many people to support the expanded government role even after postwar demobilization.[7] Furthermore, the prosperity of the post-war economy and the ensuing boom confirmed this renewed belief in the federal government’s ability to sustain growth via spending and Federal Reserve monetary policies.[8] Promoting maximum employment became an official government aim during peacetime with the passage of the Employment Act in 1946.
National social movements also raised people’s demands for safeguards and changes from federal officials in the 1960s and 1970s. Inspired by the black civil rights movement across the Jim Crow South, President Lyndon B. Johnson supervised the enactment of two robust new national legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Through his Great Society agenda, LBJ also introduced significant healthcare and anti-poverty initiatives for Americans in need. Similarly, the environmental movement and incidents like the disastrous Santa Barbara oil leak in 1969 persuaded a large number of people that centralized environmental rules were necessary.[9] As a reaction, President Nixon sanctioned the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and oversaw the enactment of necessary legislation, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. During these decades, confidence in an engaged federal government peaked.
Conservative ideological forces retaliated against this increase in government in the years that followed, attempting to restrict federal authority and, if possible, give state and local governments more power. It was the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980 that ignited this new small-government movement.[10] Reagan said that high taxes and regulations stifled individual liberties and entrepreneurship. Thus, in addition to reducing taxes and non-defense expenditures, his government worked to deregulate a number of businesses. These opinions still spark discussions today over a variety of topics, including immigration laws, infrastructure spending, and healthcare policy. For their side, modern progressives contend that more expansive government initiatives are still necessary to address persistent problems they believe call for national solutions, such as economic inequality, gun violence, racial injustice remnants, and climate change threats.
Another significant increase in federal duties occurred in reaction to the Great Recession that affected worldwide economies in the late 2000s. The American housing bubble broke in 2007-2008, leading to a financial crisis that posed a possibility of causing another depression.[11] During the administrations of President Bush and Obama, the federal government implemented drastic measures aimed at stabilizing large banks, enterprises, as well as local and state budgets.[12] Controversial federal policies offered substantial bailouts to banking and auto firms, as well as budgetary aid to local governments, to mitigate severe job losses and failures. The national debt increased due to these rescues, but they successfully averted a worse economic collapse. Furthermore, the implementation of stringent new government laws to regulate banking activities and safeguard consumers was intended to curb the irresponsible conduct that triggered the crisis.[13] Despite ongoing ideological disagreements, this incident highlighted Washington’s crucial economic oversight role in times of market failure and resulting American hardship.[14]
In conclusion, the connection between residents and the federal government has consistently changed as a result of America’s shifting political, social, and economic environment over the last 150 years. National crises and movements have often prompted the government to take on additional responsibilities across domains, from commercial regulation to social welfare to environmental control. These responsibilities have ranged from industrialization to wars and activism. Although ideological differences fuel disagreements over federal authority, Washington, D.C., has historically been the center of ever-greater centralization and responsibility. The federal government has grown from a little organization in 1865 to the multitrillion-dollar bureaucratic monster that Americans rely on today to push for change on the most critical issues confronting the country. Given the interdependence of contemporary American society, this more involved connection is likely to last.
Bibliography
Piatak, Jaclyn S., and Sarah L. Pettijohn. “Within Source Diversification When the Going Gets Tough: Examining Alterations to Human Service Nonprofit Funding by Levels of Government.” Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 44, no. 1 (2021): 45–66. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27202925 .
Rao, Gautham. “The New Historiography of the Early Federal Government: Institutions, Contexts, and the Imperial State.” The William and Mary Quarterly 77, no. 1 (2020): 97–128. https://doi.org/10.5309/willmaryquar.77.1.0097 .
SELL, T. M. “Federalism: STATES WITHIN THE STATE.” In Washington State Politics and Government, 29–36. University of Nebraska Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.7492233.6 .
SELL, T. M. “Federalism: STATES WITHIN THE STATE.” In Washington State Politics and Government, 29–36. University of Nebraska Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.7492233.6 .
Smith, Alison. “Federal Government.” In Multiple Barriers: The Multilevel Governance of Homelessness in Canada, 76–104. University of Toronto Press, 2022. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctv2sm3bcz.7.
Ware, Leland. “Plessy’s Legacy: The Government’s Role in the Development and Perpetuation of Segregated Neighborhoods.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 7, no. 1 (2021): 92–109. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2021.7.1.06.
[1] T. M. Sell, “Federalism: States Within the State,” in Washington State Politics and Government (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2023), 29, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.7492233.6.
[2] T. M. Sell, “Federalism: States Within the State,” in Washington State Politics and Government (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2023), 30 https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.7492233.6.
[3] Alison Smith, “Federal Government,” in Multiple Barriers: The Multilevel Governance of Homelessness in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2022), 76 104, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctv2sm3bcz.7
[4] Alison Smith, “Federal Government,” in Multiple Barriers: The Multilevel Governance of Homelessness in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2022), 80 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctv2sm3bcz.7
[5] Sell, “Federalism,” 29-36.
[6] Gautham Rao, “The New Historiography of the Early Federal Government: Institutions, Contexts, and the Imperial State,” The William and Marsy Quarterly 77, no. 1 (2020): 100 https://doi.org/10.5309/willmaryquar.77.1.0097 .
[7] Sell, “Federalism,” 30.
[8] Smith, “Federal Government,” 85.
[9] Smith, “Federal Government,” 90
[10] Rao, “The New Historiography,” 110.
[11] Smith, “Federal Government,” 86.
[12] Ware, “Plessy’s Legacy,” 100.
[13] Ware, “Plessy’s Legacy,” 101
[14] Jaclyn S. Piatak and Sarah L. Pettijohn, “Within Source Diversification When the Going Gets Tough: Examining Alterations to Human Service Nonprofit Funding by Levels of Government,” Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 44, no. 1 (2021): 60, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27202925 .
write