Blogs > Liberty and Power > Upton Sinclair's Fabrications

Mar 9, 2006

Upton Sinclair's Fabrications




A letter from Lawrence W. Reed, the president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, appeared yesterday in the Wall Street Journal on Upton Sinclair's role in meat packing regulation. Many thanks to William Stepp for calling it to my attention:
John J. Miller's essay on Upton Sinclair's"The Jungle" (Leisure & Arts, Feb. 23) reminds us that Sinclair's novel on Chicago meatpacking plants was motivated by the author's ill-informed passion for socialism, but there's more to the story. The dreadful conditions Sinclair depicted in his novel were largely hogwash.

Government oversight did not begin with the passage of the law inspired by Sinclair, the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. Hundreds of inspectors had been employed by federal, state and local governments for more than a decade. Congressman E.D. Crumpacker of Indiana noted in testimony before the House Agriculture Committee in June 1906 that not even one of those officials"ever registered any complaint or [gave] any public information with respect to the manner of the slaughtering or preparation of meat or food products."

To Crumpacker and other contemporary skeptics,"Either the Government officials in Chicago [were] woefully derelict in their duty, or the situation over there [had been] outrageously over-stated to the country." If the packing plants were as nasty as alleged in"The Jungle," surely the government inspectors who never said so must be judged as guilty of neglect as the packers were of abuse. A 1906 report from the Department of Agriculture provided a point-by-point refutation of the worst of Sinclair's charges, labeling them"willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact,""atrocious exaggeration" and"not at all characteristic."

President Theodore Roosevelt was well aware of Sinclair's fabrications. In a July 1906 letter to editor William Allen White, TR wrote,"I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth."

As it turns out, the big meatpackers themselves pushed for the 1906 act because it put the federal government's stamp of approval on their products, foisted the annual $3 million price tag onto taxpayers, and imposed costly new regulations on their smaller competitors. Far from a crusading truth-seeker, the socialist Sinclair was a sucker who ended up being used by the very industry on which he heaped so much unjustified scorn.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Paul Noonan - 3/10/2006

In addition to the fact that THE JUNGLE is a novel, it is also true that Sinclair's intention in writing it was not primarily to expose the meatpacking industry as regards the consumer; it was to expose the working conditions of the workers in a factory of a century ago. Referring to the public uproar occasioned by the book Sinclair famously said of the public: "I aimed at their heart and hit their stomach".


Protagoras - 3/10/2006

I recently had some disheartening discussion with students about Sinclair myself. I talk about it here.


Jonathan Dresner - 3/9/2006

The "New Sinclair Letter" is more a media creation than anything terribly new, actually. No Great Matter has been covering this since it came out.


Anthony Gregory - 3/9/2006

Thanks for posting this, David. In my experience, hardly a single person "educated" by the government schools to respond to calls for laissez faire by invoking The Jungle is even aware that the book was a novel.

For more on the history of meat inspection, I recommend "We Can Do Better than Government Inspection of Meat" by Ernest C. Pasour Jr.


Kenneth R. Gregg - 3/9/2006

A good revisionist case can be made against Sinclair, as I've pointed out before: http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/2005/12/new-sinclair-letter-discovered-on.html
I think he was a man desperately afraid of being discovered for the fraud that he was. It would be quite useful to do an investigation on his career from the standpoint of what has become increasingly known today.

Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net