Reread the
Varying Viewpoints Essay on
p.529 in your
American Pageant and then compose an argument that compares and contrasts the views of
at least two of the historians discussed in that essay -
you will need to do some research on the internet to find more specific information about each historian and work that is cited in the essay. If you try to base your argument solely on the limited information in the essay itself, then you will end up with a VERY weak essay that may only score as high as a 2 or 3 on the 9 point scale. Evaluate the extent to which each historian's view is potentially historically valid, and then the extent to which there are problems with that view that do not seem to fully address the significance of the Populists and the Populist Movement during the Gilded Age. As before, identify and label at least one rhetorical device that you use in your argument (if you want to track more than one, please do so since the more practice you have at identifying and labeling your own, you will be that much better prepared for the AP Exam in May).
Historians in the Essay:
Charles and Mary Beard -
The Rise of American Civilization (1927-42)
Vernon Louis Parrington -
Main Currents of American Thought (1927-30)
John D. Hicks -
The Populist Revolt (1931)
Richard Hofstadter -
The Age of Reform (1955)
Lawrence Goodwyn -
Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America (1976)
Edward L. Ayers -
Promise of the New South (1992)
Robert C. McMath -
American Populism (1993)
DUE DATE: Monday, January 21st by midnight
Word Count: Minimum 500 words
41 comments:
Olivia Brophy
Per. 3 & 4
Pt. 1
Different historians have always had different views on the events going on around them or that have already taken place, and often times these views are completely contrasting. Historians Charles and Mary Beard and Richard Hofstadter, as well as many of their fellow GIlded Age historians are prime examples of this. While the Beards supported the Populists and their movement, Richard Hofstadter, writing much later, saw their actions and beliefs in a negative light.
Charles and Mary Beard, both from the agricultural state of Indiana, were known for their leadership of the anti-business “progressive school of writing” (American Pageant, p. 529). The individual backgrounds these two giants of the history world provide evidence for their beliefs. Charles was born into a wealthy farming family in a farming town. It is interesting to note, however, that by aligning himself with the Populist party, it appears as though he did not support the idea of the Gospel of Wealth that formed a protective shell around such economic giants as John D. Rockefeller. Mary, on the other hand, was born and raised in Indianapolis, where her father was a lawyer and her mother a schoolteacher [BOLD](prior to marriage)[BOLD]. Her father was a [BOLD]full fledged follower[BOLD] of the temperance movement, which, due to the Temperance Party’s occasional alliance with the Populist Party, may have provided her with early insight into the beliefs of the party. Additionally, both Charles and Mary Beard were born during the Reconstruction era, and were bitterly disappointed with it’s failure to radically change lives, and may have seen Populist beliefs as a way to try and make up for Reconstruction. The time period in which the Beards were growing up was also one of widespread economic instability. This instability was especially felt by farmers, which Indiana was still largely populated by. In fact, for the most part, Indiana’s small amount of manufacturing and industrialization was based around agriculture even after Reconstruction had ended. For the reason that this couple, from an early age, were each surrounded by the type of people [BOLD](farmers, middle class workers)[BOLD] that would later form the Populist Party, it makes a lot of sense that Charles and Mary Beard would agree with the issues supported by the Populists, however, it also shows that they have a bias towards this party.
Contrasting the Beards in upbringing and beliefs is historian Richard Hofstadter, who wrote during the 1950s. Although he had lived through the Great Depression, Richard was writing his historical works in a time of American prosperity and high hopes for the country stemming from it’s victory in World War II. Additionally, Hofstadter was born in the urban New England city of Buffalo, New York. For Buffalo, the Gilded Age was an age of change, during which many new industries [BOLD]showed their faces[BOLD]. By the time that Hofstadter was born in 1916, the city was approaching a population of half a million people, would have been very diverse, considering the presence of industry, and would have been aware of the most current modern trends, due to it’s proximity to the major cities on the east coast. Hofstadter often railed against the Populist Party by accusing them of being against things as urbanization, modernizing and immigrants, which he had always been surrounded by, growing up in a city, and accepted as the norm. Thus, it does not take a lot of effort to understand why he would align himself against the Populist Party, but it also is evident that his upbringing and surroundings, similar to Beards, provided him with ample bias.
Pt. 2
The Beards, because of their exposure to the effects of a failed Reconstruction, the effects that corrupt businesses had on farmers and middle class workers and an economy which appeared to be never-endingly tumultuous, supported the Populist Party and their plans. The Populist Party, did in fact have plans that had the potential to try and fix these problems, such as government aid for farmers, government intervention with powerful railroads and free silver coinage. However, these plans, especially the free coinage of silver, had unforeseen consequences for the country. Additionally, though the Beards were pro-labor, the Populist party did not welcome all workers into its folds. Although early on the party had attempted to gain the support of black workers in the South, this project turned sour. A Southern Populist leader, who had previously attempted to garner the black vote, even became a vicious racist after the initiative failed.
Richard Hofstadter’s view of the Populists was also sometimes a bit shortsighted. Most noticeably, his claim that the party was made up of “harrassed little country businessmen” (American Pageant, pg. 529) was unfair. The vast majority of the farmers who worked with and/or for the Populist Party were not basing their cause on petty things. Many of them had suffered, to some degree, at one time or another, due to the effects of the corruption surrounding big business, or just the presence of big business in their lives. Additionally, after the 1896 election, Hofstadter’s assertion that the Populists were “anti-immigrant” could be declared true to a small degree, because the Party fell into the practice of racism, particularly in the South.
Thus, through the evidence analyzed above, one could assert that there were elements of the views of both Charles and Mary Beard and Richard Hofstadter on the Populist Party and it’s members that were true, but that there were also elements that were not necessarily correct. This just goes to prove the validity of the statement, “There are three sides to every story - yours, mine, and the right one.”
RHETORICAL DEVICES:
Parentheses (x2)
Alliteration
Personification
As the horrors of the Civil War faded in America’s rear-view mirror (metaphor), the country began to look ahead as the turn of the century grew nearer. During this time of cultural upheaval, the Populist movement swept across the nation creating a controversial message that would be critiqued for decades to come. Historians Vernon Louis Parrington and Richard Hofstadter present varying viewpoints that clearly reflect the time period in which they lived.
Parrington’s harsh condemnation of the corruption of the time is easily understood when one considers his relative closeness to the events that transpired. His opinion of the time is summed up in his metaphor of the “Great Barbecue”- a sumptuous feast that the federal government rolled out for supposedly the entire country. However, Parrington asserts that this bounty was only offered to the “fat cat” businessmen who essentially ran the government as the man behind the curtain (allusion). The hypocrisy of the government at this time is best reflected in the imbalance between the Homestead Act- which was meant to better the life of the everyday American, for a price- and the vast land grants given to the Union Pacific Railroad that didn’t cost a dime. Because of this imbalance, Parrington’s views come off as obviously pro-Populist as this grassroots movement was unique in its crusade against the so-called dangerous political shifts of the time. The nostalgic overtones to Parrington’s writings are quite reasonable when set in the context of the 1920’s. America was in the throes of great social upheaval as the country’s agrarian tradition was essentially thrown to the wind, leaving an age that was decidedly modern. As a man stuck in between two centuries, Parrington’s cold, anti-business sentiments are a direct reflection of his life in the roaring sea of the twenties. (metaphor)
In contrast to Parrington’s almost wistful opinions of the Populists, Richard Hofstadter is decidedly brusque in his characterization as “harassed little country businessmen.” As a historian in the 1950’s, Hofstadter’s understanding of the importance of industrialization and business contribute to his opinion of the Populists. Through the lens of mid-twentieth century America, Hofstadter uncovers a far less nostalgic and idealistic side to the movement, painting a picture of uneducated and paranoid people looking to drag the country back into darkness of the Antebellum age. Though later scholars have since pointed out fatal flaws in Hofstadter’s reasoning, like his disregard for their legitimate concerns about the economic practices of the time, his book, The Age of Reform, is still one of the definitive textbooks on American History.
With two quite disparaging viewpoints, it is second nature to proclaim one truthful and the other blatantly false; however, the immense space of time that separates these two historians makes it so that each is correct in its own right. Parrington’s longing for a return to a more agrarian state of affairs corresponds to his support of the Populists’ idealistic message. Additionally, Hofstadter’s immersion in fully industrialized 1950’s America lends itself to a staunch pro-business outlook, thus shunning the Populists as petulant pests. (alliteration) In their disagreement, these two great historians perfectly exemplify the problems that coexist with the American experiment.
Beckett Lee
Periods 3 & 4
The Gilded Age was a time in American history that is difficult for people in the 21st century to understand. The reason for this is that it has been shrouded by the views and perspectives of the historians who have portrayed it over time. Even the name Gilded Age is an opinion that has been passed down and accepted as the name of the era. The opinions of people about the Gilded Age have been constantly skewed, depending on which historian one believes. While Charles A. Beard calls the Gilded Age “The Great Barbeque,” Richard Hofstadter refers to with the more positive “Age of Reform.” Both of these historians had very different ideas about what the Gilded Age was about. Charles A. Beard of the progressive school believed that the Populists were poor agrarian reformers who wanted to take down the corrupt big businesses that controlled the purse string of a corrupt government; Richard Hofstadter believed that the Populists were more similar to a strange extension of the Luddites who hated all things modern, urban, and progressive; both men believed that the Gilded Age was a time of reform that brought America into a brighter future. These two historians both have absolute, concrete evidence that they are correct, yet neither is right. How can this be? (Rhetorical Question)
Charles Beard believed that the Populists were working class heroes who fought upper class oppression. This is not surprising considering the world he lived in. Charles Beard was born and raised in a world making leaps and bounds towards socialism and communism. It is no wonder that he was a member of a flourishing “progressive school” of thought. The time in which he wrote his book was during the growing periods of the new communist and socialist nations. America was setting the stage for the Great Depression with wild spending and social programs. He conveys his upbringing and the world around him by treating the Populists, who were a quasi-socialist movement in America, as the heroic proletariat who were waging an anti-bourgeoisies war like their brothers around the world. Therefore, the Gilded Age was a time of corruption and control of the bourgeoisies according to Charles Beard. In many ways he was right. There were many corrupt officials and Congressmen who tried to use men like Jay Cooke and the railroads to make money and vice versa. There were many scandals in the Grant administration and those to follow. There were many “corrupt bargains” made, many trusts and monopolies attempted, many anti-capitalistic robber barons to contend with, many good men being shoved into obscurity by the big business giants who sought to profit. (Asyndeton) There is proof of all of these things. However, there were many innovators as well. James Hill of the Great Northern Railroad made an honest profit and did his best to help his customers. John Rockefeller used business efficiency and honest capitalism to make his product the best for less. Progress in the fields of transportation, economics, government, and science advanced the nation and the world. His pessimistic view of the world of business perfectly coincides with what one can deduce he was told to think on a daily basis, that business was bad and laborers were good, period. Those following his school of thought will not get a clear picture of the Gilded Age. So who will? (Rhetorical Question)
(Continued) People who follow Richard Hofstadter’s history of the Gilded Age will get a very different picture of the “Age of Reform,” but for the same reason. Richard Hofstadter lived and wrote his works during the era of World War Two and the Cold War where everything socialistic or communistic was seen as the essence of evil. He too would write what he was told about socialists and would see the same things in the Gilded Age that represented evil in his era, socialists. In the Gilded Age, the Populists were the socialists. Hofstadter’s portrayal of the Populists depicts them as against urbanism, immigrants, the East, modernity, rational thinking, intellectualism, and even Jews. His world told him that socialists were these things, so he took his world view and imposed it on the Gilded Age. While many populists were essentially Neo-Luddites who were opposed to true industrial progress, many of them were just looking for social reform, something that only the government could give them. Hofstadter called this era the “Age of Reform” because the government needed reform, not a clean sweep and the imposition of the Jacksonian Spoils System which the Populists supported. Once again, the actual history of the Gilded Age falls to opinions based on a more modern world. Once again the two extremes are correct yet incorrect simultaneously.
The only thing that both men seemed to agree upon was that the era needed reform. Beard believed that social reform following the example of the Russian Revolution was needed during the Gilded Age. Hofstadter believed that government reform was needed. It can therefore be deduced that something needed to be fixed during the Gilded Age, but that opinions as to what needed to be fixed are dependent on more modern issues. Research reveals that records from the time are heavily politicized and are usually more persuasive than factual in nature. It would seem that history has hidden the true nature of the Gilded Age in a web of opinions. Perhaps it can be said that the Gilded Age itself was not gilded, perhaps the gilding comes from the generations of bias and historical politics that mask the truth beneath. Perhaps the truth will never be uncovered because the tools necessary to remove the gilding are not available. Perhaps the Gilded Age was, in reality, “The Great Masquerade,” which time itself gilded so that we of the present may try to better understand our own masquerade. Political scandal, opposing views nearly shattering the country, the rise of radicals and revolutionaries in an uncertain world heading towards an uncertain future. Sound familiar? (Rhetorical Question). Welcome to the 21st Century.
Each historian has had their own opinion on each time period all throughout, and their views are heavily influenced by the events that have occurred in their own time period. During the Gilded age many companies began growing in the East and taking over farm lands creating monopolies. As this happened, what was known as the plutocratic party, began to rise up creating and unjust government. Therefore, for social, political, and economic reasons Charles and Mary Beard’s ideal on the “Gilded” age are, to a large extent, accurate and Richard Hofstadter’s view is, to a lesser extent, true.
During the mid to late 1900’s, historians have portrayed numerous standpoints on a variety of topics throughout the course of not only American history, but the history of all mankind. And due to those differing perspectives, a historian’s view point may or may not be as accurate as most like to believe, nor fully address the significance of the specified area of study. In this case, Richard Hofstadter and Vernon Louis Parrington are two historians that mirror the reasons for these divergent thoughts and opinions on the effects of the Populist Movement (BOLD) (and the Populists themselves) (BOLD). First, Parrington constantly contended his own ideas with realist’s ideals while Hofstadter himself emphasized those realism ideals; second, Richard Hofstadter rejected the interpretation of history as a series of collective socio-economic struggles while Parrington emphasized social issues; and third, Hofstadter was critical of radicalism and argued that this age was aimed at big business and urbanism, while Parrington’s beliefs swayed greatly towards several antibusiness sentiments. (BOLD) Thus, for these idealistic, social, and contrasting innovative standpoints, determining the value of the Populist Movement during the Gilded Age was like looking through countless lenses of varying prescriptions (BOLD). First, Parrington often competed with realist ideals. Parrington, best known for his three volume history of America, referred to as Main Currents in American Thought was strongly influenced by the viewpoint of J. Allen Smith, a political scientist. He himself had become somewhat of an idealist, and reasoned that the Constitution was mainly an early example of victorious financiers and capitalists instead of agrarians. Seeing as his real subject was that of American Liberalism. Hofstadter’s Age of Reform on the other hand, was enormously impacted by Charles A. Beard, leading him to discount any of Parrington’s largely abstract political feelings, which hardly ever proved to be a reality. Hofstadter was encouraged to look for deeply integrated self-interest and fiscal goals of confrontational monetary supporters. Because of this, each historians view is partially valid to a limited extent predicated largely upon prior influence. Parrington was closer in his respect, due to the People’s Party growing out of agrarian unrest; however, Hofstadter came even closer in the respect that economics played a much bigger role than any impractical non-realist perspective. (BOLD) Realists speak, but idealists listen (BOLD). Second, Richard Hofstadter rejected the explanation of history as a series of collective socio-economic struggles while Parrington’s put an emphasis on entirely social complications. For example, Hofstadter, despite being influenced by Beard, did reject the socio-economic superlative. He believed that all the historical periods should be understood as a consensus and shared by adversaries. While Parrington focused on the social impact, he honed in on the psychological viewpoint, such as irrational fear, paranoia, and social status anxiety to name a few. Parrington’s Main Currents of American Thought was thoroughly sought as “useable new history” according to liberals. He saw the economic as well as geographic forces as the key tools, but also turned to much idealism to back his arguments. Due to this, both Parrington’s view in this case was more plausible and the Populists in addition to the Populist Movement were exemplified as a chiefly economic problem, with social and physiological aspects to it. And third, Hofstadter was critical of radicalism and aimed more at big business and urbanism, while Parrington’s beliefs swayed greatly towards many antibusiness sentiments. Hofstadter held that the progressive historians had further romanticized the Populists because they were best seen as “harassed little country businessmen” and felt that there was an abundance of provincial prejudices.
Part 2
And Parrington was a leader of one of those so called school of historical writing that was evident in the twentieth century. Growing up in the Gilded Age, these Progressive historians shared in a certain disappointment in the Civil War. Beholding much of what they saw as primarily pro-labor, pro-farmer, and pro-reform. Hofstadter was a part of this unveiling of the “dark-side” of Populism, while Parrington was not. And although the time period did differ immensely in terms of each historian’s point of view, as a result, the two of them are somewhat accurate in the sense that each viewpoint was predicated upon a different time period, bringing to life not just the reality of that moment, but of the state of mind that ensued because of this. Also, Hofstadter was leaning closer to uncovering these “dark secrets” while Parrington was mainly focused on only a minute detail of the entire picture (BOLD) (laborers, farmers, reform, these are all merely communal derivatives, nothing else) (BOLD-see Parenthesis used twice). Neither fully addressed nor completely ignored the significance of mass effect on the Populist Movement, but only highlighted and pursued the topic of a minute detail. So, for these uncompromising, societal, and contrasting ground-breaking standpoints, determining the value of the Populist Movement during the Gilded Age truly depended on the combined positions of multiple historians. And without these miscellaneous viewpoints, our own viewpoints on historical accuracy through current historians would not be what they are today.
Rhetorical Devices Used (In Order):
Parenthesis (used twice)
Simile
Antithesis
Anthony Luna
Period 3 and 4
Historians in different time periods have varying views on historical events. They often connect events occurring in their time period to their view about the subject of discussion. Charles and Mary Beard judged the post- Civil War era harshly. Charles Beard was born into a wealthy Indiana, farming family. He experienced hard physical labor while he worked on the farm. Because he was born into a farming family he was very much anti- business, pro- farmer, pro- reform, and pro- labor. Charles grew up in the Gilded Age and during this time farmers and industrial workers did not share in the prosperity that was being generated by businesses. Thus, Charles was bias against business because his farmer class was not enjoying the wealth of this period. Charles condemned politicians for being corrupt and railed against the arrogance of corporate power. Charles Beard's take on the reconstruction era was that equal rights was a smokescreen for hiding their true motivation, which was promoting the interests of industrialists in the North east. Beard thought that greed and economic causation emphasized the centrality of corruption.Beard was a progressive historian and obviously supported the Populist party. Richard Hofstadter believed that the progressive historians romanticized the Populist party. Hofstadter was born in 1916 and lived through the Great Depression. During the great depression there was mass paranoia. Because the farmers and industrial workers went through a less intense depression, I believe Hofstadter concludes that the Populist party [BOLD](They were made up of farmers and labor workers)[BOLD] were simply just acting out on paranoia. Populism had elements of anti- intellectualism, and paranoia. Hofstadter called the Populist party just as "harassed little country business men". Hofstadter being city born and bred, has a biased against farmers because he is obviously pro- business.
However, these two historians experienced two different time periods, Beard experiencing the Gilded Age and Hofstadter experiencing the Great Depression. However Hofstadter was able to see the after affects of the Gilded Age and was able to see the bigger picture, whereas Beard experienced the Gilded Age. Even though both historians have contrasting views, neither is wrong. For experiencing the event and then looking into the past about it will generate two different understandings of why a group of people did a specific action or why the causes of an event occurred. However both historians have rights to their views on what occurred in the Gilded Age and their opinions on the Populist party.
The Gilded Age of 1872-1900 left its mark on the American public in many different ways. As the era of corruption came and went, the varying personal backgrounds of two historians in particular (Charles Beard and Richard Hofstadter) produced conflicting interpretations of the Populist movement of that gilded time. First, the different time periods in which these two historians lived had a great impact on their school of thinking; second, the kind of people that Beard and Hofstadter aligned themselves with influenced the direction of their particular views; third, the two historians’ divergent backgrounds set them up for the bias that would ultimately affect their views on the Populists. Therefore, because of generations, peers, and backgrounds, Charles Beard’s view on the significance of the Populist movement during the Gilded Age is historically valid to a large extent, whereas the view of Richard Hofstadter is only historically valid to a limited extent.
As progressive historians, Charles and Mary Beard supported anti-business, pro-labor, pro-farmer, and pro-reform movements. They saw the Gilded Age as a negative time, filled with conceited power holders only opposed by the virtuous Populist groups, while on the other hand, consensus historian Richard Hofstadter viewed the Populists as more unreasonable in reality than classically portrayed, interpreting the Populists as highly prejudiced against many “blameless” things. However, one of the reasons why Charles Beard’s view comes across as more historically valid is because having grown up in the Gilded Age, Beard (1874-1948) experienced firsthand the causes and effects of the corrupted era, making his views and concerns direct results of what was going on during that time period. In 1898, during the Gilded Age, Beard took to focusing on labor issues. His career began at the height of the Progressive era, which also may have drawn him to that particular school of thought. On the other hand, while actually living in the Gilded Age did much to shape his perspective, it also gives him a certain amount of bias because he actually experienced many of those problems firsthand. As for Hofstadter (1916-1970), he didn’t grow up during that time, so he had no personal experience of the worries or tensions that accompanied the time period, which does takes away some weight from his views on things that occurred then. Then again, this also allows Hofstadter to be less “biased” in that sense. Focusing on philosophy and history, his interests, unlike Beard, were not really stimulated by anything happening in that time period that needed addressing to.
Peers carry great weight when it comes to swaying one’s outlooks and decisions. In Charles Beard’s case, the influence came from economic historian E.R.A. Seligman and anti-imperialist John A. Hobson. The effect these two people had on Beard can be seen through Beard’s centering on the economic and social history rather than ideas and political cultures, as does Hofstadter. The influence left on Beard by these two peers also explains why in The Rise of American Civilization, Beard blames sectionalism along with deep social and economic tensions among farmers, planters, and industrialists as the cause of the Civil War. This limits the validity of Beard’s view on populism because a large part of his take on things was prejudiced by those two people. The same “influenced” outlook pertains to Hofstadter, who was closely aligned with C. Wright Mills, a radical sociologist from whom he afterwards developed an interest in both psychology and sociology. The effects of this can also be seen in Hofstadter’s works, where he continuously tends to utilize those psychology and sociology concepts for his historiography.
Lastly, background is what sets a person up for everything else that will come ahead of them. Born in Indiana as a Midwesterner, Beard naturally took up many Midwestern ideals, which, more likely than not, further enforced his “progressive historian” platform for pro-labor, pro-farmer, and pro-reform. This seems to make him a little more connected with the mission of the Populists, but also makes him more biased in their favor. As for Hofstadter, who was “city-born-and-bred” in New York, he more identified with urban industrialism than populist agrarianism, which does explain his sharp criticism of the Gilded Age’s populist movement in his work The Age of Reform, because as a favorer of business, he doesn’t really find much equal ground with pro-farmer populism. This is also biased towards one side. Based on this, it is evident that both historians’ current positions on the Gilded Age closely associates in some way with their personal histories.
Beard and Hofstadter took on very conflicting views over the Populist movement during the Gilded Age. (bold) With one from the Midwest and one from the city, one who lived during that age and one who studied it after, one who took on a complete socio-economic view and one who refused to accept the idea that a “fundamental class conflict” was to blame, (end bold) both historians came from very different standpoints. However, because of his more direct connection with what happened in the period of 1872-1900, I think that Charles Beard’s view of the Populists is more largely valid than Hofstadter’s, who seemed a little more detached from the topic.
Annika Newman
Periods 1 & 4
The late nineteenth century was an era of excessive corruption and greed, which ultimately resulted in the existence of many separate opinions of different historians in regards to this “Gilded Age” and the evolving Progressive Era. First, Charles and Mary Beard followed the mainstream view of how corrupt this time period was and critiqued the evolution of a new plutocratic class; second, John D. Hicks believed that the Populists were the only people that truly opposed corporate greed, particularly in Wall Street, and accredited the failure of their leader William Jennings Bryan to a legacy that returned in the Progressive Era; and thirdly, Lawrence Goodwyn asserted that the Populists were genuine reformers with valid concerns regarding their concealment by capitalism and urban industrialism. Thus, the previously listed historians had unique opinions about the late nineteenth century era and the Progressive Era.
Charles and Mary Beard, authors one of the most influential textbooks of the era The Rise of American Civilization (1927-1942), believed that the 1890s were full of corruption and corporate greed, and loathed the emergence of the new plutocratic class. According to several articles, the Beards often asserted that most of the history of the United States revolved around economics. For example, they believed that the Civil War was solely caused by the deep-rooted economic struggle between agricultural South and industrial North, as opposed to the popular view that it was caused mainly by the social issue of slavery. Thus, the Beards were leaders of a progressive movement, in which they introduced ideas of financial self-interest and economic issues (BOLD) (about the adoption of the United States Constitution and metamorphoses caused by the war) (BOLD). Likewise, the Beards view on the late nineteenth century revolved around economics, as they feared the future of the emanating plutocratic class (BOLD) (the wealthy, powerful class). Being of progressive bias, the Beards identified Populists as the only party with orderly resistance to the political, social, and economic order taking shape in the end of the nineteenth century.
Similar to Charles and Mary Beards’ view of Populism and the late nineteenth century, John D. Hicks, author of The Populist Revolt of 1931, asserted that Populists were the only people that genuinely disagreed with corporate greed in Wall Street. He also believed that the failure of the Populist Party leader William Jennings Bryan to see victory in one of the three presidential elections he was a candidate for ultimately created a legacy that would later return during the Progressive Era of the 1890s-1920s. Known as a proud supporter of popular democracy and a foe of the gold standard, Bryan had a great faith in the wisdom of the common people and was otherwise known as “The Great Commoner.” Thus, Hicks argues that this social interest for the people resulted in the influential Progressive Era of social activism.
Lawrence Goodwyn, on the other hand, had quite a separate viewpoint from Hicks and the Beards. Author of Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America (1976), Goodwyn saw Populists as resentful (BOLD) (though rightfully so) (BOLD) towards the finance capitalism and urban industrialism that so obviously overshadowed and replaced them. Goodwyn believed Populism to be the last attempt of (BOLD) popular political participation (BOLD), and were later extinguished by the combining into the Democratic party.
Lawrence Goodwyn, Charles and Mary Beards, and John D. Hicks each had unique points of view on the Progressive Era and the idea of Populism. Each saw Populists in a positive light, but the question of to what extent did the Populist movement leave a positive impact on the country varied amongst the historians. The Progressive Era was a time of defining social activism and political movement that eventually would lead to alterations in the Democratic party for the next century to come.
Parenthesis
Parenthesis
Parenthesis
Alliteration
A historian is a person who studies and writes about the past and is regarded as an authority on it. Historians are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all history in time. The late nineteenth century, as the Civil War terrors disappeared, was an era of extreme corruption and greed, which ultimately resulted in the way of life of many separate opinions of different historians in regards to this “Gilded Age”, coming from Mark Twain’s own opinion, and the developing Progressive Era. (Parenthesis) During this time of cultural disorder, the Populist movement, starting in 1892, swept across the nation, pitting neighbor against neighbor. (Parenthesis) First, Charles and Mary Beard followed the conventional view of how shady this time period was and critiqued the development of a new plutocratic class; second, Louis Parrington’s cruel criticism of the corruption of the time is easily understood when one considers his relative closeness to the events that transpired; and third, John D. Hicks believed that the Populists were the only people that truly opposed corporate greed, particularly in Wall Street, and accredited the failure of their leader William Jennings Bryan to a legacy that returned in the Progressive Era. Thus, the earlier listed historians had different one of a kind opinions about the late nineteenth century era and the Progressive Era. Charles and Mary Beard, authors one of the most influential textbooks of the era The Rise of American Civilization (1927-42), believed that the 1890s were full of dishonesty and commercial greed, and detested the appearance of the new plutocratic class. (Parenthesis) Louis Parrington’s opinion of the time is added up in his metaphor of the “Great Barbecue”- an extravagant banquet that the national government rolled out for allegedly the “entire” country. However, Parrington asserts that this prize was only offered to the businessmen who fundamentally ran the government as the man behind the curtain, as if they are the wizard of Oz. (allusion) Parallel to Charles and Mary Beards’ view of Populism and the late nineteenth century, John D. Hicks, who wrote The Populist Revolt of 1931, asserted that Populists were the only people that truly disagreed with commercial gluttony in Wall Street. He also believed that the letdown of the Populist Party leader William Jennings Bryan to see victory in one of the three presidential elections he was a candidate for, in the end created a legacy that would later return during the Progressive Era of the 1890s-1920s. Each historian saw Populists in a positive light, but the query of to what extent did the Populist movement depart with an optimistic contact on the country varied amongst the historians. The Progressive Era was a time of defining public activism and political progress that eventually would lead to alterations in the Democratic Party for the next century to come. In their own ways, these four great historians completely demonstrate the troubles that coexist with the American trial.
All blog entries after this point are more than 1 week late.
In the late 1900’s historians would often interpret the past in a way that reflected the present. As such, there were many different views on the infamous Gilded Age. Charles and Mary Beard, the two power houses who wrote “The History of the United States,” which was the US history textbook for decades after it was written. Both of the Beards were born and raised on wealthy farming plantations and as such felt animosity towards big business in the east that was the center of corruption. Populists in the Beards‘ view were poor farmers who wanted the big business of the east to relinquish its power over to the farmers. The polar opposite of this view belongs to Richard Hofstadter. Who believed that the Gilded Age was more of an age of growth than an age of corruption, and that the populists were simply people who disliked a modernized America. Both historians’ personal views were reflected in their views of the past.
Charles and Mary beard were not fond of the Gilded Age, as they grew up during that time period. Charles was raised in wealthy, western farming family, while his would be wife was raised in a family of teachers and lawyers and both attended a “progressive” school where populists views were taught more than school subjects. By the time Charles Beard was an adult he believed that the populists were members of the working class who were being oppressed by the railroad tycoons, by the company owners in the east, and by the millionaire kingpins such as J.P. Morgan who controlled nearly everything.(Asyndeton) Beard explained that the Gilded age was a time of greed and corruption, because of the underhand deals that those in power would participate in daily. Jay Gould is an example of this corruption. He used market manipulation to almost acquire a monopoly on the gold market. This required multiple bribes and shady deals to pull off. Because of the corruption and widespread over spending (both private, public, and in government)(Parenthesis) that was rampant in the Gilded Age, lives were not so easily changed. Some even made a turn for the worst. Growing up during this time period, Charles and Mary were able to witness firsthand the falseness of the Gilded Age and therefore judged poorly.
Richard Hofstadter wrote on the Gilded Age a little later than the Beards; around 1950. He was born in Buffalo, New York, which actually improved economically over the course of the Gilded Age, mostly because it was an industrial city, heavily populated with immigrants. Urbanization and modernization were common in the town of Buffalo, and Hofstadter was raised with this as the norm. When he had grown and was active in politics, he often sided against the populists. Who he believed were going against the industrialization and modernization he was so accustomed to. Hofstadter called the populists “harassed little country business men,” as they were insignificant and annoying in the eyes of the powerhouses in the east. However, they proposed a threat in the form of free coinage of silver, (which does not mean unlimited silver coins, it means that the price of silver would find its own value compared to gold, which was the standard at the time)(Parenthesis) those in the east did everything they could to keep gold more valuable than silver. If they did not and free coinage was allowed, many eastern businessmen would lose a lot of money as a result of stockpiling gold to use in overseas trading, because everybody overseas only wanted gold. The case of the Beards and Hofstadter shows that the views of historians can vary simply by the place you were born and the perspective you had in a certain event. Like how two people can go to the same concert, and hear the same music, but experience something completely different based on where they sat. (Simile)
The historians that had a major influence on the time period of the gilded age spoke mainly against the corrupt politicians and the back alley deals of the factories and governments. They looked back in longing of the agrarian past of the Americas in (bold)rose tinted glasses(bold). In the twentieth century the progressive school of historical writing took place, a concept that was strongly based in the individual workman ship of a person, and had view points against the business and organizations. Charles and Mary Beard created the book, ‘The Populist Revolt’, of which the primary view stated that the time period consisted of populism. Populism shows how the poor, down on his luck farmer and workman deifying the plutocratic and aristocratic regime in order to maintain the simple ways of the past. Their view point stretches back to the civil war, with the eventually force of the economic machine crushing the individual workman. In those years warfare resolved nothing and economic forces reigned supreme.
However other historians defer from this stage of thought, after World War 2 the idea spanned away from this economic machine, people thought that war was not only productive but necessary. Thusly historians veered away from the so thought economic causes of the beards. Historians such as Richard Hofstadter charged that populism was no more than “harassed little country businessmen”. His view was more of a play for power and control over the general population rather than the economic driving force viewed by the beards. He viewed that the populist revolt was less to preserve their old agrarian ways but more as an irrational play to resist the changes brought by the industrial America. He claimed their aggression was aimed at concept such as urbanism, immigration, and the concept of modernity and technological advancements. Populism was seen as a dark and shadowy practice in the cold war era, populism only hid the practice of anti-intellectualism, paranoia, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and technophobia.
The ideas of beard were unpopular for a long period in the mid 20th century because of a forced want to believe in morality. The people believed that the civil war was a period were men fought for a social change, a moral that would easily allow the population to understand the view point in a simple and easy to digest viewpoint. However the civil War was not so cut and dry in its cause. The Civil war was based on an economic dilemma between the two groups of people, not a social force of change. If a social change had been a factor then the gilded age could be represented as the long term effects of the civil war, and the populists were the remnants of the south, and its descendants would continue to fight the northern oppression that was big organized industry. As such Charles and Mary beards viewpoints would be in direct opposition to the social change that dominated the 20th century with reforms for women and other races, people needed to believe the civil war represented their cause; which is the reason for Hofstadter’s view on the social issues of the gilded age.
Posts after this point are VERY significantly late.
During the time of the early 20th century, historians from all over the country wrote about their views of time of the late 1800's, which is labeled as “The Gilded Age” by Mark Twain. The Historians that studied the gilded age managed to develop many contradicting views on the events and occurrences that happened during this time. First, Charles and Mary Beard, who were famous (or infamous to many [parenthesis]) for being political liberals and their works include a rash, radical, re-evaluation (Alliteration) of the founding Fathers who he believed were more motivated by economics rather than political principles; second, Richard Hofstadter wrote the book “The Age of Reform” which is different than other historical novels because instead of re-telling the history of the time period, it analyzes the common beliefs in our modern perspective of the time period. Historians Richard Hofstadter and Charles and Mary Beard have recorded their opinions and views of the time of the Gilded Age, but what they had to say did not completely correspond with each other.
When dealing with Reconstruction and the time of the Gilded Age, Charles Austin Beard and Mary Ritter Beard focuses more on greed and centralized their beliefs on the reality of corruption. Charles and Mary Beard, along with other historians such as Howard Beale and C. Vann Woodward, believed that the main motives of the time period were not based on equal-rights, but instead, their motives were only based on promoting the interests of industrialization in the Northeastern states. The basic flaw was the conjecture that there was a unified business policy. The scholars of the mid- 20th century contended that businessmen were widely divergent on money or tariff policy. While the businessmen of Pennsylvania wanted high taxes, the rest of the population did not because of the taxes that were enforced with steal. The steal built for the railroads were bought with mass quantity, therefore, a tariff on steal would completely throw off the management of investment for the railroad. While Charles and Mary Beard had great ambition to re-analyze the main motivations of Reconstruction, conservative scholars suggested serious flaws in the Beards’ assertions and research. So, in the 1950's, Charles and Mary Beard lost influence in the history profession and the attention was turned away from the theory of economics being the motivation of the Gilded Age.
Another important historian of the time was a man by the name of Richard Hofstadter. Hofstadter was unique in his work because of the way he analyzed history in a psychological way. His work was ground-breaking, he explored the subconscious motives of the politics, such as, anxiety, paranoia, social status, irrational fear, and anti-intellectualism. His book The Age of Reform (1955) evaluates the ideals of a free-farmer owning his own land and how America was promoting rural life above urban life. Richard Hofstadter had learned to love the city, and he claimed that the rural living was promoted by their family origins. In the book, Hofstadter analyzes the ideas of the average participant, not the political or legislative philosophies. By doing this, the book proves to be a creative historical work. Despit the impressive evaluation of the motives of the time, some of Richard’s arguments have since been proven mistaken by historians such as Norman Pollack, Lawrence Goodwin, and Robert Wiebe. These historians points out Hofstadters misconceptions of the Populists and the Progressives. These misunderstanding include the fact that the Populists were not simply fundamental capitalists attempting to amend but were, instead, radicals looking to the future for an equalized industrial system and change in the values of individuals in order to protect their humanity as their independence flew away from them in a rapidly industrializing society.
LSorry post is VERY late. I somehow screwed up while turning it in beforehand.
Wow, if you still have not posted this blog, that is just REMARKABLY, FLABBERGASTINGLY, OUTRAGEOUSLY beyond belief. If you do submit after this point, your entry is PROFOUNDLY, SUPERLATIVELY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY LATE!
An era of great greed and corruption known as the Gilded Age, the name given by Mark Twain, resulted in many different opinions of different historians about this time period and the Progressive Era. Lawrence Goodwyn declared that the Populists were open and sincere reformers with great concern regarding their own suppression by urban industrialism and also capitalism; second, Charles and Mary Beard followed the standard view of the corruption in this time period and also evaluated the new plutocratic class; third; John D. Hicks was convinced that the Populists were the only group of people who truly were against the evils of corporate self-indulgence and of William Jennings Bryan -their cowardly leader-and his failures (parenthesis). These three historians all had very diverse opinions about the late nineteenth century and Progressive Eras.
Lawrence Goodwyn, the author of Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America (in 1976), he saw the Populist Party as being against both urban industrialization and capitalism. Goodwyn believe that the Populists party was simply to be the final effort for common constitutional contribution (alliteration), later being smothered by the entrance into the growing Democratic Party.
Very different from Lawrence Goodwyn’s interpretations, Charles and Mary Beard believed that the late nineteenth century consisted of great corruption and corporate greed. They also were opposed to the introduction of the growing plutocratic class. Authors of some of the most widely used textbook called The Rise of American Civilization (in 1927-1924), the Bears often stated that most of American history focused itself on economics. They were convinced that the cause of the Civil War was simply the economic free-for-all between the Industrialist practicalities of the North versus the Agricultural pro-slavery South. Many thought of Charles and Mary Beard as leaders of a progressive movement, for they both presented new ideas regarding economic issues (particularly the adoption of the Constitution and changes after the Civil War) (parenthesis). The Beards also feared for the future of the late nineteenth century plutocratic class, or the wealthier class with the most power. Charles and Mary Beard, because of their pre-established bias, thought of the Populists Party as the only one with opposition to the economical and political orders of this era.
Similar to Charles and Mary Beard’s interpretations of the late nineteenth century and Populism, John D. Hicks was convinced that the Populists Party and its followers were the only kind if people who sincerely opposed the evils of corporate greed in Wall Street. He was also very sure that the failure of William Jennings Bryan, the Populist Party leader, in securing one of the three presidential elections he entered in established a sort of legacy that carried on into the Progressive Era of the late eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds. Bryan had huge faith in the people and all that they had to offer; he was known as a strong supporter of the silver standard (instead of the gold). Therefore, John D Hicks argued that this kind of social attention for the people resulted in the great progress and influence of social involvement in the Progressive Era.
These three historians, Lawrence Goodwyn, Charled and Mary Beard, and John D. Hicks, all had distinctive points of view on both their ideas of Populism and its party and the Progressive Era as a whole.
During the period 1872 to 1900 in the United States, corruption grew in its industrial cities to a very large extent. However, while there was indeed a significant influence of corruption on American economics, politics, and social factors, this “Gilded Age”, as Mark Twain sarcastically remarked, did posses important honorable qualities amidst the false actions in America’s people. This period encountered both advantages and disadvantages of corruption in the US government’s active support of deception finance of politicians; the growth of financial issues after political party differences collapsed; while increasing American economic activity reached abundance. Though the initial view of the Gilded Age may have held some crooked foundations underneath, such actions constructed the future superiority of American economic power in the world.
The late 1800s brought many ”unnoticed” presidents as corruption grew under their administration, whether they knew or not, as presidents such as Grant blindly supported deception in his own cabinet. These actions bilked many out of their money through government funded projects consciously stretched the US Treasury, such as the overextended construction of the US railroad by two companies to extend their funding. This shows that the early signs of corruption influenced the course of the United States since the railroads could never have connected. Early deceptions to get rich would only follow after seeing the US government act as a bigot system while businessmen reaped the benefits. This pattern of defying the law (synecdoche) and its investigators only entered the daily life of politics as a result.
Sinful influences snaked into shady American politics as loyalties between political parties were even stretched, as many questioned Congress’s decisions under Grant’s presidency (alliteration). The deceit had grown so much it became enough to where the Liberal Republican Party formed apart from the Republican parties, called to end the corruption within the Branches of the U.S. as they supported Horace Greeley in his run for the presidency, along with Democrat help, confirming the few differences, as they both followed similar objectives. The small differences between parties created less powerful politicians, and political disputes were unimportant, such as race and finance. Politics stayed reduced until decades to follow, when true major issues would form.
Amidst the political and financial chaos, American industry continued its exponential growth as manufactured goods became more and more common, along with other familiar economic goods. Tariffs were placed to tax farmers and prevent them security in the trade of their own personal goods, while industry influenced the trade of good in the people of the U.S. amidst a growing financial depression. With a large labor force still established in the South (still mostly African Americans forced into the sharecropping business), a great output of American trade birthed a requirement for efficiency, yet at the cost of the common people’s lifestyle. American Industry would soon become as recognized as it would be in the 1920s following World War 1.
While corruption was a leading issue in this time period, given its sarcastic nickname, “The Gilded Age” helped establish the modern U.S. economy and political polices to adjust to its advancements in so many areas of lifestyle. Among many evils, the United States advanced into a new age of recognition with some obstacles along the way.
If you haven't submitted this one by now, well, wow, I just don't even know what to say anymore.
The late nineteenth century was an era of excessive corruption and greed, which ultimately resulted in the existence of many separate opinions of different historians in regards to this “Gilded Age” and the evolving Progressive Era. First, Charles and Mary Beard followed the mainstream view of how corrupt this time period was and critiqued the evolution of a new plutocratic class; second, John D. Hicks believed that the Populists were the only people that truly opposed corporate greed, particularly in Wall Street, and accredited the failure of their leader William Jennings Bryan to a legacy that returned in the Progressive Era; and thirdly, Lawrence Goodwyn asserted that the Populists were genuine reformers with valid concerns regarding their concealment by capitalism and urban industrialism. Thus, the previously listed historians had unique opinions about the late nineteenth century era and the Progressive Era.
Charles and Mary Beard, authors one of the most influential textbooks of the era The Rise of American Civilization (1927-1942), believed that the 1890s were full of corruption and corporate greed, and loathed the emergence of the new plutocratic class. According to several articles, the Beards often asserted that most of the history of the United States revolved around economics. For example, they believed that the Civil War was solely caused by the deep-rooted economic struggle between agricultural South and industrial North, as opposed to the popular view that it was caused mainly by the social issue of slavery. Thus, the Beards were leaders of a progressive movement, in which they introduced ideas of financial self-interest and economic issues (BOLD) (about the adoption of the United States Constitution and metamorphoses caused by the war) (BOLD). Likewise, the Beards view on the late nineteenth century revolved around economics, as they feared the future of the emanating plutocratic class (BOLD) (the wealthy, powerful class). Being of progressive bias, the Beards identified Populists as the only party with orderly resistance to the political, social, and economic order taking shape in the end of the nineteenth century.
Similar to Charles and Mary Beards’ view of Populism and the late nineteenth century, John D. Hicks, author of The Populist Revolt of 1931, asserted that Populists were the only people that genuinely disagreed with corporate greed in Wall Street. He also believed that the failure of the Populist Party leader William Jennings Bryan to see victory in one of the three presidential elections he was a candidate for ultimately created a legacy that would later return during the Progressive Era of the 1890s-1920s. Known as a proud supporter of popular democracy and a foe of the gold standard, Bryan had a great faith in the wisdom of the common people and was otherwise known as “The Great Commoner.” Thus, Hicks argues that this social interest for the people resulted in the influential Progressive Era of social activism.
Lawrence Goodwyn, on the other hand, had quite a separate viewpoint from Hicks and the Beards. Author of Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America (1976), Goodwyn saw Populists as resentful (BOLD) (though rightfully so) (BOLD) towards the finance capitalism and urban industrialism that so obviously overshadowed and replaced them. Goodwyn believed Populism to be the last attempt of (BOLD) popular political participation (BOLD), and were later extinguished by the combining into the Democratic party.
Lawrence Goodwyn, Charles and Mary Beards, and John D. Hicks each had unique points of view on the Progressive Era and the idea of Populism. Each saw Populists in a positive light, but the question of to what extent did the Populist movement leave a positive impact on the country varied amongst the historians. The Progressive Era was a time of defining social activism and political movement that eventually would lead to alterations in the Democratic party for the next century to come.
Parenthesis
Parenthesis
Parenthesis
Alliteration
If you still have not done this blog, I just am speechless about that.
Cammie Gelbuda
Period 1 & 4
Mr. Korling’s
AP Eng. Lang/APUSH
When the 1800’s were ending and the 1900’s were starting the Populist movement was very popular. In the beginning years of the 1900s there were lots of books written by “progressive historians” who grew up in the Gilded Age. These writers believed that the Civil War had not made a rebirth of American idealism. These were the first historians to write about the time that happened after the Civil War. They were writers like Charles and Mary Beard, who wrote “The Rise of American Civilization’ or the Vernon Louis Parrington Mine Currents of American Thought.” These writers made the points that they supported laborers and farmers and reformers. They were against businesses and big orders from the government. Parrington believed farmers and laborers needed help to defend their way of life, which was simple, and hardworking. Parrington put down the corruption of the government of this time. He wrote that the government was only offering good stuff to the business people while the very hardworking farmers and laborers got little. By the end of the 1800’s and the early years of the 1900’s the country split between the hardworking farmers and laborers and was headed towards a more modern way of life with business.
Then in the 1950’, which was twenty or thirty years after Vernon Louis Parrington’s history book called the “Main Currents of America thoughts” was written, books started to come out against the Populists movement. One book was written by a man called Richard Hofstadter, the name of the book was “The Age of Reform” and was written in 1955. Richard Hofstadter was raised only in the city and probably had never got his hands dirty or sweated through a hard days work under the sun like the farmers and laborers. His book said that the Populist revolt was aimed not just at big business and big money but also at the spreading of people out to urban areas, the immigrants and even against the country becoming more modern. Richard Hofstadter called this the “dark side” of Populism. He basically thought that Populists that were afraid to move into the new time of bigger business and industrialization. Hofstadter felt like the populist were always trying to pull people back to the slower times of the 1800’s.
The problem with the two different books, one by Mr. Parrington and the other by Mr. Hofstadter is that people want to pick one author to be right and the other to be wrong. Sometimes there is both right and wrong beliefs in each book. One reason is that these books were written very far apart in years. I believe that Mr. Parrington’s book is written to support of the Populist beliefs because he was raised in a time where working hard outside, (farming, cattle, gold mining) was a way of life. On the other hand Mr. Hofstadter’s book is written condemning the Populist movement because he was raised in a city environment in a business age.
Anthony Luna
Period 3&4
REVISED EDITION
Historians in different time periods have varying views on historical events. They often connect events occurring in their time period to their view about the subject of discussion. Charles and Mary Beard were pro- populists, while Hofstadter's view on the populists was that they were just harassed little country business men.
The Beards were born in the Gilded Age and Hofstadter was born much later and experienced the Great Depression. Charles Beard was born into a wealthy Indiana, farming family. He experienced hard physical labor while he worked on the farm. Because he was born into a farming family he was very much anti- business, pro- farmer, pro- reform, and pro- labor. On the flip side Hofstadter was city- born and bred, and he believed that the Populist was not just aimed at big business but also was aimed towards the East, immigrants, and urbanism however irrationally. Charles grew up in the Gilded Age and during this time farmers and industrial workers did not share in the prosperity that was being generated by businesses. Thus, Charles was bias against business because his farmer class was not enjoying the prosperity of this time period. Charles condemned politicians for being corrupt and railed against the arrogance of corporate power. Charles Beard's take on the reconstruction era was that equal rights was a smokescreen for hiding their true motivation, which was promoting the interests of industrialists in the North east. Beard thought that greed and economic causation emphasized the centrality of corruption.Beard was a progressive historian and obviously supported the Populist party. The Populists Party grew out of agrarian unrest in response to low agricultural prices in the South and the West. The Farmers' Alliance, formed in Texas in 1876, promoted collective economic action by farmers and achieved widespread popularity in the South and Great Plains.
Richard Hofstadter believed that the progressive historians romanticized the Populist party. Hofstadter was born in 1916 and lived through the Great Depression. During the great depression there was mass paranoia. Because the farmers and industrial workers went through a less intense depression, I believe Hofstadter concludes that the Populist party [BOLD](They were made up of farmers and labor workers)[BOLD] were simply just acting out on paranoia. Populism had elements of anti- intellectualism, and paranoia. Hofstadter being city born and bred, has a biased against farmers because going through the Great depression say that industry was and is the way to go. Industry did get America out of the Great depression. The Beards being from the farmer class had a biased towards the Populists party because they were the people willing to do something for the problems of farmers. Additionally the Beards experienced the gilded age and would not be able to see its after affects. However Hofstadter was able to see the entire picture of the Gilded age and see its after affects. Even though both historians have contrasting views, neither is wrong. For experiencing the event and then looking into the past about it will generate two different understandings of why a group of people did a specific action or why the causes of an event occurred. However both historians have rights to their views on what occurred in the Gilded Age and their opinions on the Populist party. However, neither of there views is completely valid. Both historians are both biased and relate how they view the Populists Party.
When the furnace of the Civil War was brought to a cool simmer, a new age in American History was ushered in known as the Gilded Age. The Gilded Age was a defining time in American history as a Jeffersonian view of America slowly died and the engine of capitalism and industrialization transformed America to an urbanized and industrial power. This time in American history is often in dispute as many injustices occurred during this time and many historians argue over the legacy of this controversial time. One of the most controversial figures of the Gilded Age was the Populist movement which many historians laude and loath this political movement. Historical Heavyweights Vernon Parrington and Richard Hofstadter share opposite views on the Populist movement and both of their views have valid points and short comings. These views on the Populist will prove to be essential when judging the Gilded Age as a whole.
Vernon Parrington was at the helm of the progressive school of historical writing, which collectively decried the Gilded Age as an era of pallid political leaders and rampant with corporate corruption. Parrington’s Main Currents of American Thought gave a chilling retelling of the Gilded Age and described the period as the great barbeque because of all of the government spoils that were doled out, which benefitted the politically connected and powerful. The Credit Mobilier Scandal serves as evidence of government corruption and graft because this fraudulent contractor cheated the government millions of dollars and a group of congressmen where affiliated with this depraved corporation. Tales of graft like this were common place in the Gilded Age and Parrington’s interpretation of the time is valid but also Parrington’s progressive bias was critical in the development of his view point. The Progressive Era was a reaction to the graft of the Gilded Age and it is only logical that intellectuals of this era would look unfavorable of the Gilded Age as the wounds from this time have not healed(simile).
Richard Hofstadter, a premier American intellectual, had different views on the Gilded Age and asserts in his book The Age of Reform that populist were over romanticized and best described by Hofstadter as “harassed little country business men” who irrationality attacked urbanism and modernism and desired to turn back the clock. A prime example of the populist assault on modernism can be seen in their desire to take the United States of gold standard and have unlimited coinage of silver. This would have destroyed America’s international trade and industry and set America back greatly. International trade was essential to the American economy and urban cities as ports were crucial for trade. This assault on the gold standard showed that the populist movement was irreverent to fundamentals of modern economics and importance of the modern city. Hofstadter developed his interpretation of the Gilded Age a great deal of time later after Parrington did, thus the wounds of this time healed allowing to Hofstadter to give a contrasting view of the time period.
The Gilded Age will always be a controversial time and many historians will try to define this era through their own biased lens. Parrington and Hofstadter interpretations of the Gilded Age are on opposite spectrums. These two historians’ life experiences play a major role in molding their opinions. Vernon Parrington experienced the horrors of the Gilded Age first hand and saw how destitute the farmers in Kanas were. Unlike Parrington, Hofstadter was born and raised in an urban environment. Hofstadter saw the populist movement as an attack of his urban life while Parrington saw the populist movement as a means to rectify the system in order to ease their own hardships. Hofstadter was raised in the comfort of the city, which was only possible because of the rapid industrialization which took place during the Gilded Age. Parrington lived and experienced the bitter end of this industrialization while Hofstadter reaped its benefits. These two men’s life stories tell a great deal about how their opinions were formed and it shows that the human experience is essential in forming ones bias.
These two men’s views on the Gilded Age will forever be a testament to controversy and ambiguity that comes with the era. The consequential clash of these two intellectuals shows that peoples own personal experiences do interfere with their intellectual careers
Edith Chavez
Periods 1&6
The terrible Gilded Age came to be viewed in several different ways once it was over. These viewpoints were mostly influenced by world the people lived in. Mary and Charles Beard and Richard Hofstadter had contrasting viewpoints of the Gilded Age and the Populists that came as a result, these viewpoints greatly influenced by the era in which they grew up in; the peers they had; and the backgrounds of the historians also greatly affected the way they saw this part of the past. The Beards have a vastly valid viewpoint [ALLITERATION] while Hofstadter was also valid but mostly just in adding details to the Beards as he tended to miss the big picture.
The historians tended to see the Populists of the Gilded Age through the lenses of their time period. [METAPHOR] Mary and Charles Beard were from the Progressive movement which had evolved from the Populist movement of the Gilded Age and as a result were against business and greatly for laborers, farmers, and reforms. This caused their view to largely glorify the Populists and shun the Gilded Age. Hofstadter was born in 1916, versus Charles Beard born in 1874 (during the Gilded Age), [PARENTHESIS] so while he was born during the Progressive movement he did not take side with the Beards since his time of really looking into history came much later. The Beards on the other hand got the to see the corruption of the time and as a result were by far more sympathetic to Populists than Hofstadter who tended to look down on them. The Age was truly filled with several scandals but the Populists were guilty of the faults Hofstadter pointed out. While the Beards tended to overlook such things and were more critical of the era the Populists lived in, they still managed to draw a more accurate illustration. [METAPHOR] This had a little more to do with more than just the era they grew up in.
The peers the different historians had greatly affected their opinions. The Beards were part of the Progressive movement and grew up in the Gilded Age giving them a more first-hand account of the corruption allowing them to see the Populists in a more favorable light while Hofstadter was taught more to use secondary sources and relied on them to such a large extent that he ignored primary sources. This was largely due to the professors he had while in college. Hofstadter also didn’t care for the arguments made by the Populists as he was into Social Darwinism and saw it as a justification for scandals of the Gilded Age. He was right in that the Populists were racist and combined with their stance on the silver issue helped to weaken them as it joined them with the Democratic Party but the Beards got the big picture. They understood that the Gilded Age was corrupt and that the Populists were greatly significant in pushing the country to clean itself up and get rid of the filthy politicians. [METPHOR] Everyone was a victim of something as even some of the wealthy were negatively affected- those in the gold market were victims of Fisk and Gould. [PARENTHESIS] The Beards did miss the dark side of the Populists as they wouldn’t feel such a need to highlight the dark side of people living in a dark age of US history.
General backgrounds of the historians greatly affected what they did see and what they didn’t see. [ANTITHESIS] Hofstadter was into Communism and despite Stalin’s actions causing him some disillusionment, he remained communist. With this in mind, it’s no wonder he saw the extreme independence of the Populists as one of their many faults. Communists don’t exactly favor individualism. [PLEONASM] Charles Beard worked on his family farm in his youth causing him to be a bit more sympathetic with laborers and farmers while Hofstadter was an intellectual and further criticized the Populists for being uneducated. This is true though Thomas Nast drew political cartoons to shed light on the corrupt Tammany Hall which didn’t require people to really read so much as just look at the cartoons so while Hofstadter did have a point, he failed to realize that despite many of the Gilded Age victims not being educated, a high education wasn’t necessarily needed for seeing corruption and ending it. The racism of the Populists though really got to him and because of his background, had a dislike of exclusivity of the party. The Beards looked favorably at the laborer and Charles even worked to found Ruskin Hall- an accessible school to the working man.
The result of these three factors was that the Beards shunned the Age and glorified the people while Hofstadter looked down on the Populists and justified the scandals that hurt the petty people.
The latter half of the 1800s saw the rise of profound corruption and greed- especially in politics and big business [parenthesis]. This graft present in the Gilded Age led to many differing viewpoints on the era by historians in regards to the Populist movement, which never quite hit full swing, but still managed to make an impact on American society. First, Charles and Mary Beard followed the view of the progressive school view in that everything was corrupt during this time and criticized the emergence of a new plutocratic class; second, John D. Hicks held that the Populists were the only real opposition to the growing crookedness throughout the country and that the failure of their leader, William Jennings Bryan, left a lasting legacy that would be echoed in the Progressive Era and the New Deal; and third, Lawrence Goodwyn claimed that the Populists genuinely attempted to reform the nation with authentic concerns that had long been overshadowed by capitalism and industrialism. Therefore, the Gilded Age produced many different and unique opinions from historians with regards to the Populist movement.
Charles and Mary Beard held the opinion that the 1890s were crammed full with corporate greed and corruption, and disliked the new plutocratic class. Authors of one of the most influential textbooks on the era, The Rise of American Civilization, the Beards often asserted that economics was the center point that American history revolved around. Holding to this theory, they also believed that the Civil War was caused solely by the economic problems between the industrial North and the agricultural South, opposed to the more popular view that slavery was the main cause of the horrific war. because of these views, the Beards lead the progressive movement, introducing the theories of financial self interest and economic consequences. Unsurprisingly, the Beard’s view on the late 19 century was economic, fearing the greater influence and popularity of the wealthy plutocratic class. Because of their progressive bias, Charles and Mary Beard held that the Populists were the only movement with orderly resistance to the economic, social, and political order that had been established since the end of the Civil War. Similar to this view was the view of historian John D. Hicks, author of The Populist Revolt. Hicks asserted that the Populists were the only real opposition to corporate greed (Wall Street). He also stated that the failure of their “lion” William Jennings Bryan, most importantly in the presidential election of 1896, but also in his two other presidential campaigns created a legacy that would return, successfully this time, in the Progressive Era. A proud supporter of popular democracy and an enemy of the gold standard, Bryan placed much faith in the knowledge of the common people (many of them farmers). Hicks argued that socially, this interest in and for the people resulted in the Progressive Era of social reforms. However, what Hicks failed to see was that the Progressive Movement was not a duplicate of the Populist Movement, and the two reform ages were aimed and and were formed for vastly different reasons. So, although the Progressive movement slightly echoed the Populist movement, it was not a continuation of the earlier movement.
On the other hand, historian Lawrence Goodwyn,author of The Populist Movement in America, held a separate view from the Beards and Hicks. Writing in the 1960s as opposed to the 1920s and 1930s, Goodwyn held that the Populists were resentful (though fairly so, considering the trials they had been through) towards capitalisms and urban industrialism, which held vastly more power and popularity than them. He believed populism to be the last effort of popular political participation, and disappeared when they mingled with the Democratic party. Inspired by the turbulent protests going on in the 1960s, Goodwyn’s view of the Gilded Age Era can be seen as sympathetic toward the Populist “protesters” who put forth genuine causes for reform.
Charles and Mary Beard, John D. Hicks, and Lawrence Goodwyn each had differing viewpoints on the Gilded Age and the populist movement that accompanied it. Although the each saw the populists in a positive light, the extent to which their impact affected the country varied among the historians. These differing viewpoints can no doubt be attributed to what was happening throughout the country as these historians were critiquing this earlier age; however, each viewpoint gives a mostly accurate depiction of the Populist movement and its legacy.
*Parenthesis
After the end of the era of rampant corruption –known as the Gilded Age* – many different people developed many different viewpoints on the subject and its resulting Populist Party. First, Charles and Mary Beard denounced the rise of a new plutocratic class and pursued the common Progressive School view that the era was filled with nothing but corruption; second, John D. Hicks argued that, while this corruption was pandemic, the Populist party was the only true opposition towards it, specifically in Wall street, and that the fall of their leader William Jennings Bryan attributed to a legacy that paved a path towards the Progressive Era; and third, Lawrence Goodwyn stated that the Populists held a history of legitimate reform attempts and valid concerns that were trumped by capitalism and urban industrialism. Therefore, the previously listed historians each had their own individual viewpoints concerning the late nineteenth century and the following Progressive Era.
Authors of one of the most influential textbooks of the era, Charles and Mary Beard conceived that the 1890’s held nothing but corruption and corporate greed, and loathed the rise of the new plutocratic class. According to several articles, the Beards often asserted that most of the history of the United States revolved around economics. For example, they believed that the Civil War was solely caused by the deep-rooted economic struggle between agricultural South and industrial North, as opposed to the popular view that it was caused mainly by the social issue of slavery. Thus, the Beards were leaders of a progressive movement, in which they introduced ideas of financial self-interest and economic issues about the adoption of the United States Constitution and metamorphoses caused by the war. Likewise, the Beards view on the late nineteenth century revolved around economics, as they feared the future of the emanating plutocratic class the wealthy, powerful class. With a rather influential progressive bias, the Beards singled out the Populists as the only party that held an orderly resistance to the political, social, and economic order taking shape at the close of the nineteenth century.
Similar to Charles and Mary Beards’ view of Populism and the late nineteenth century, John D. Hicks, author of The Populist Revolt of 1931, asserted that Populists were the only people that genuinely disagreed with corporate greed in Wall Street. He also believed that the failure of the Populist Party leader William Jennings Bryan to see victory in one of the three presidential elections he was a candidate for ultimately created a legacy that would later return during the Progressive Era of the 1890s-1920s. Known as a proud supporter of popular democracy and a foe of the gold standard, Bryan had a great faith in the wisdom of the common people and was otherwise known as “The Great Commoner.” Thus, Hicks argues that this social interest for the people resulted in the influential Progressive Era of social activism.
Lawrence Goodwyn, on the other hand, had quite a separate viewpoint from Hicks and the Beards. Author of Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America (1976), Goodwyn saw Populists as resentful, though rightfully so, towards the finance capitalism and urban industrialism that so obviously overshadowed and replaced them. Goodwyn believed Populism to be the last attempt of popular political participation, and were later extinguished by the combining into the Democratic party.
During the period of 1872 through the 1900’s, the United States was experiencing a time of corruption and greed in its industrial cities. This late nineteenth century was also know as the “Gilded Age” -as Mark Twain had called it-BOLD. However, while there was indeed a significant influence of corruption, this “Gilded Age” did posses important honorable qualities amidst the false actions in America’s people. This had resulted to many separate opinions from different historians in regards to this “Gilded Age”. First, there was Charles and Mary Bears who thought this was a time of corruption and were pro-populists; second, Lawrence Goodwyn, who declared that the Populists were concerned regarding their concealment by capitalism; and thirdly, there was John D. Hicks who believed that the Populists were the ones who opposed corporate greed, mainly in Wall Street. Therefore, these three main historians had different views about the Gilded Age.
Charles and Mary Beard believed that the late eighteen hundreds were full of corruption and greed, as said in one of their textbooks they had written, -“The Rise of American Civilization”-BOLD (1927-1942). According to several articles, the Beards often asserted that most of the history of the United States revolved around economics. Thus, the Beards were leaders of a progressive movement, in which they introduced ideas of financial self-interest and economic issues. Likewise, the Beards view on the late nineteenth century revolved around economics, as they feared the future of the wealthy plutocratic class. Being of progressive bias, the Beards identified Populists as the only party with orderly resistance to the political, social, and economic order taking shape in the end of the nineteenth century.
Author of The Populist Revolt of 1931, John D Hicks BOLD (who had similar opinions with the Beards) declared the Populists were the only people who disagreed with corporate greed in Wall Street. He also believed that the failure of the Populist Party leader William Jennings Bryan to see victory in one of the three presidential elections he was a candidate for ultimately created a legacy that would later return during the Progressive Era of the 1890s-1920s. Known as a proud supporter of popular democracy and a foe of the gold standard, Bryan had a great faith in the wisdom of the common people and was otherwise known as “The Great Commoner.” Thus, Hicks argues that this social interest for the people resulted in the influential Progressive Era of social activism.
With a completely different viewpoint than Hicks and the Beards, in 1976, Lawrence Goodwyn was the author of Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America.
saw that the Populists were resentful towards capitalisms and urban industrialism. He believed populism to be the last effort of popular political participation, and disappeared when they interacted with the Democratic party.
Thus, these three memorable historians, Lawrence Goodwyn, Charles and Mary Beards, and John D. Hicks each had unique points of view during this time about the Populists.
All graded up to this point.
As the distance between America and the Civil War grew, the United States began to look towards the turn of the century. The Civil War merely swept many of the civil rights issues that it was dealing with under the rug but it missed many things. These missed things came up again during the Progressive Era as the Populist movement began to grow and spread across the nation, something that historians would critique and write on for the next century. Vernon Louis Parrington and Richard Hofstadter are historians that are known for critiquing this movement with different viewpoints because of the different generations they were a part of.
Vernon Louis Parrington’s critique comes from the 1920’s and the proximity of his generation to the one in question explains the rough harshness that he examines the government with. A metaphor that he used to summarize his points is known as the “Great Barbecue.” In this metaphor Parrington explains how the government advertised a feast for “everyone” but in actuality only offered the riches to the already “fat cat[s].” These businessmen were practically in total control of the government, he asserts, and their purses took advantage of it. There is definitely some truth to this and the obvious evidence that supports his claim is the government’s dealing with the Homestead Act. This Act was supposed increase the betterment of everyday living for the average person; it ended up costing more than it helped. This was imbalanced with the fact Union Pacific Railroad was given massive land grants costing the company nothing. When reading Parrington’s critique the populist bias is obvious, this is probably do to him being a part of the generation when progressivism reigned. And when his harsh and seemingly rash remarks put into the context of the 1920’s they make more sense.
Juxtaposing Parrington’s support of the populist cause, Richard Hofstadter characterizes the “harassed little country businessmen” as being the victim of the critiques of the historians before him. Hofstadter understood industrialization and its importance for the nation because he lived in the very different 1950’s and this contributed to his opinion on the populists. Despite the immense backlash that was brought on after the book was published Hofstadter’s Age of Reform depicts the populist movement as trying to bring the government back into the antebellum period and is still a key view that needs to be understood if one is to truly study the populist movement. And while Hofstadter’s utter disregard for the economics of the time is apparent his view is a clear representation of what the people of the 1950’s thought about their recent history.
Pro-Populist vs. Pro- Business. To a large extent this shows the evolution of thought from the 1920’s to the 1950’s and while this does not represent everyone’s opinion connections can still be made. The highly industrialized 50’s have a better understanding and appreciation for the necessity of business whereas the 1920’s think they have been shown the evils of them and are insistent on their “busting.”
Nick Palmares
Per. 4
Historians are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all history in time. The late nineteenth century, as the Civil War terrors disappeared, was an era of extreme corruption and greed, which ultimately resulted in the way of life of many separate opinions of different historians in regards to this “Gilded Age”, coming from Mark Twain’s own opinion, and the developing Progressive Era. (Parenthesis) During this time of cultural disorder, the Populist movement, starting in 1892, swept across the nation, pitting neighbor against neighbor. (Parenthesis) First, Charles and Mary Beard followed the conventional view of how shady this time period was and critiqued the development of a new plutocratic class; second, Louis Parrington’s cruel criticism of the corruption of the time is easily understood when one considers his relative closeness to the events that transpired; and third, John D. Hicks believed that the Populists were the only people that truly opposed corporate greed, particularly in Wall Street, and accredited the failure of their leader William Jennings Bryan to a legacy that returned in the Progressive Era. Thus, the earlier listed historians had different one of a kind opinions about the late nineteenth century era and the Progressive Era. Charles and Mary Beard, authors one of the most influential textbooks of the era The Rise of American Civilization (1927-42), believed that the 1890s were full of dishonesty and commercial greed, and detested the appearance of the new plutocratic class. (Parenthesis) Louis Parrington’s opinion of the time is added up in his metaphor of the “Great Barbecue”- an extravagant banquet that the national government rolled out for allegedly the “entire” country. However, Parrington asserts that this prize was only offered to the businessmen who fundamentally ran the government as the man behind the curtain, as if they are the wizard of Oz. (allusion) Parallel to Charles and Mary Beards’ view of Populism and the late nineteenth century, John D. Hicks, who wrote The Populist Revolt of 1931, asserted that Populists were the only people that truly disagreed with commercial gluttony in Wall Street. He also believed that the letdown of the Populist Party leader William Jennings Bryan to see victory in one of the three presidential elections he was a candidate for, in the end created a legacy that would later return during the Progressive Era of the 1890s-1920s. Each historian saw Populists in a positive light, but the query of to what extent did the Populist movement depart with an optimistic contact on the country varied among the historians. The Progressive Era was a time of defining public activism and political progress that eventually would lead to alterations in the Democratic Party for the next century to come.
As America moved forward leaving the civil war behind, we swept through most of the issues that we were having. Some of the issues though, were forgotten about and rather then just getting fixed quickly they were not dealt with at all. Later on in time as the populist movement began to spread out these issues that were not dealt with began to become a problem; just not for the writers who wrote about and critiqued these problems. A couple of historians of this time were Vernon Louis Parrington and Richard Hofstadter. These are two famous historians because of the way they depicted this era, both being from different generations themselves. Vernon Louis Parrington’s point of view was along the lines of the harshness of the government. “The Great Barbeque” is a metaphor that he used to explain how the government said they were going to “provide” for “everyone” when really they just gave the rich even more wealth. Wealthy owners of businesses practically ran the government he stated. The obvious truth behind wall of lies is the governments act in the Homestead Act. This act that was made to help people by giving them land ended up hurting them more than it helped. This reason is because when the Union pacific railroad was granted tons of land to work on and build on, it costed the government nothing. As you read Parrington’s work you can hear the bias side of the populist. This may just be because of the generation he was in, the harsh ways he wrote seem to be more fit at this time period.
Richard Hofstadter disagreeing with the harsh Parrington says that the business men were the victims of all the historian critiques before him. Because Hofstadter was in the 1950’s time period which was completely different from the 20’s in which Parrington was from he understood how industrialization was important to the United States. Regardless of the unexpected anger that the book brought about Hofstadter’s Age of Reform talks about how the populists were trying to bring the government back to the antebellum period. Although you can tell in his writing that Hofstadter is completely unimpressed by the economics of this time, his points show a clear understanding of how people in this time period thought about their history.
Hofstadter vs. Parrington. These two Authors are great examples of how the evolution of thought had changed from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. Although their opinions do not account for everyone’s at the times, they do depict a great amount of people’s thoughts. The 1920’s believed that the businesses were evil in the opinion that they kept getting the “short stick” where as the businesses were flourishing. The 1950’s however saw it as a good way for industrialization to continue moving forward, they were highly in favor of this movement and ideas had changed greatly since the 1920’s.
Post a Comment