Please agree or disagree with the following statement.
In the fight against monopolies, farmers ensured their
failure by engaging in electoral politics.
*You must provide specific examples and support from Zinn (cite page numbers).Also, feel free to use other resources as well (textbook, previous video clips, etc.) to support your argument.
*To receive full credit thoughtfully and succinctly respond to a least one classmates response .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the fight against monopolies, farmers ensured their failure by engaging in electoral politics. However, this would not have been true in other period of time than this Gilded Age. At this time, the government—state and federal—was corrupted into becoming a support system for the greedy ways of monopolies. For the farmers, even in their Populist Party, joining this system was destined for failure.
ReplyDeleteIn this time, “the government of the United States was behaving almost exactly as Karl Marx described a capitalist state: pretending neutrality to maintain order, but serving the interests of the rich.” (Zinn 258) The major issue in elections was whether or not the protection monopolies got from the government would be damaged by the new president or party. The Populist Party had no chance of making it in this system because their party wanted to do exactly what in those times would ensure a candidate of not being elected. In this corrupted system, if the Populist Party wanted to win an election, they would either have to hide their motives, or corrupt the system in their favor. The party was against doing both of those things so the political atmosphere in electoral politics was completely against them.
In 1886, state “legislatures, under the pressure of aroused farmers, had passed laws to regulate the rates charged by farmers by the railroads. The Supreme Court that year (Wabash v. Illinois) said states could not do this, that this was an intrusion of federal power.” (Zinn 261) This action perfectly demonstrated what type of government the Populist Party was dealing with. However, it makes sense for the Populist Party to try to make a change within the political system, because labor unions had received governmental military action—much more intimidating than political action. In 1892 during The Coeur d’Alene strike, the “National Guard, brought in by the governor, was reinforced by federal troops: six hundred miners were rounded up and imprisoned in bullpens, scabs brought back, union leaders fired, the strike broken.” Actions similar to this happened in the years leading up to the formation of the Populist Party.
While there was no hope for farmers entering electoral politics with their Populist Party, it is understandable because fading away after losing an election is much less frightening than being destroyed by military power as a labor union.
The statement that farmers ensured their failure by engaging in politics is completely true. The Gilded Age was overrun with powerful companies that had bribed politicians to vote in their favor. And when poor farmers turned to politics they turned right into a brick wall.
ReplyDeleteThe Gilded age welcomed the Industrial Age. In this age, steel was being processed by thousands of tons and coal was being mined constantly from deep mines. The discovery of the various uses of oil created thousands of petroleum based products. And each and every one of these products worked to drive the era. This created a very large demand for each of these products. Thus large demand equals large profits. Multimillionaires such as Andrew Carnie, John Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan sought to protect their investments so they monopolized their respected industry. Some did so through various scandals that also created profit. (Zinn 251)
One of the most prominent scandals was the Credit Mobilier. In this scandal The Union Pacific railroad created this company and gave them $94 million for construction when the actual cost was $44 million. To prevent investigation from congressmen, they were given small shares of the company. (Zinn 248) Trough this bribery, politics were swayed in the favor of the Union Pacific railroad.
The Gilded age was filled with several examples of politicians being bribed by the rich few. And because of this bias, the farmers were certain to fail.
In response to Steven, I completely agree with his stance. He clearly shows how government corruption smothered the voices of the poor.
I disagree with this statement because the farmers had to try something to protect their way of life. it just happened that they couldn't come together in the end and finish out what they started. the farmers however tried to unite to save there way of life by forming the populist party. even though they did not win the presidential election they still had some of their politicians elected to legislative positions.
ReplyDeletewhat really hurt the farmers the aristocracy/government of the south restricting the blacks right to vote by passing the most law called the grandfather clause which made 80% of the black population not able to vote. this really weakened the populist party partly because a lot of support came from the black farmers inn the south.
An example of the big corporates putting down the farmers was when they would not out rate share their rates so they could charge each farmer differently. on page 261 of Zinn their was a supreme court case (Munn vs. Illinois) approved state laws regulating the prices charged to farmers for the use of grain elevators. this was a huge win and proves that farming a political party was not that much of a downfall because they were able to accomplish something.
in response to Ryan i disagree no offense but they dint fail completely they still managed to leave behind some positive as specks. grant it they they didn't last long but while they were there they didn't hit a fortified wall like he said for example the court case i describe helped farmers actually and chipped away at the big companies.
I’m actually using this account for my blog in English as well.
ReplyDeleteI’m Kristina Mai by the way..
In the fight against monopolies, farmers did ensure their failure by going into electoral politics. Farmers could not stand up against the multimillionaires, such as J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, or Andrew Carnegie. For example, Rockefeller was brutal in making sure that his Standard Oil Company would dominate all the other businesses. All the other weaker companies would have no hope going against these industries.
In 1887, President Cleveland refused to help the farmers out. Instead of giving the Texas farmers $100,000 to buy seed grains during the drought, he gave $45 million to the rich (Zinn, 259). The farmers did not seem to have much power at all. Similarly to what Ryan said, the rich would go through different scandals to earn more money. He even made a good point with the Credit Mobilier Scandal. It was only the rich, with their big businesses, who got benefits.
As stated on page 550, of the American Pageant, the giant industries could easily hire strike breakers. They could ask the state and federal authorizes to bring out troops against these farmers. When the farmers formed the Knights of Labors, their union shortly failed after a series of strikes. When they formed the American Railway Union, they failed as well since Cleveland demanded 14,000 troops to crush the strikes. Many of these unions did not seem to last very long.
When the farmers formed the Populist Party, they failed to unite the blacks and whites. In fact, the South was refusing to accept this party because of the intermixed group. They even failed to win the election of 1896 with the presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan.
The Gilded Age was an age filled with corruption, deceit, and injustices. Monopolies grew to crush all opposition. Despite attempts to use politics, farmer's attempts to challenge monopolies were doomed to fail.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Gilded Age, Chester Arthur's Pendleton Civil Service Act destroyed the spoils system. As a result, this caused politics to switch from a system where politicians gained power by promising government jobs to politicians gaining power by gaining support of businessmen. Now, politicians focus on getting money from businessmen (pg, 518 Textbook). When farmers attempted to appeal to politics, the majority of current politicians already depend on industrialists and their monopolies for their money. Examples of politicians supporting industrialists include the McKinley Tariff that raised tariffs to 48.4%. While this protected industrialist's businesses, it harmed farmers.
At the same time, the ever increasing numbers of immigrants to the cities caused America to transform into a industrial nation. With the majority of people now in cities, farmers were now outnumbered by industry workers who depends on industries for their jobs, further decreasing the chances of success.
In the end, farmers were poorer than the monopolies they fought against; outnumbered by monopolies they fought against; and doomed to fail against the power of industrialists.
As both Steven and Ryan demonstrated, federal troops crushed opposition. Many politicians were bribed and as a result a party formed by farmers, the Populist Party, was unable to challenge the power of monopolies.
In the Gilded Age, we see many unpopular leaders being brought into power—including Rutherford B. Hayes. Because of the electoral college, these leaders were elected but they actually did not win the popular vote. This is only one example where unpopular legislation has been put in place without popular vote. The farmers of the Gilded Age were forced into other means of getting their voice heard such as labor unions, strikes, and rebellions.
ReplyDeleteIn Texas around 1880, the Farmers Alliance Movement began in response to the troubled farmers who were being drowned out by the wealthy bankers of the North. (284) The farmers would owe money to merchants for supplies and would eventually owe so much that they would become tenants of their own land. These problems would not be solved by engaging in politics, but rather by forming alliances.
The first document of the Populist movement, the “Cleburne Demands”, to protect the interests of laborers from the wealthy industrial class. (286) The Texans also tried to use the Texas Exchange where the south would collectively handle the selling of cotton. (287) These farmers would not be able to ask the government for protection against the aristocracy, seeing as though the government was made up of the great aristocrats that the farmers were pitted against. The Farmers Alliance also tried boycotting, such as when they made their own bags out of cotton and forced the jute manufacturers to start selling their bags for cheaper. (287)
The People’s Party, or the populists were also on their way to protect the rights of farmers. James B. Weaver was the running candidate for the populist party, but he lost in the election. This was the last and final attempt for the farmers to get ahead in the political game, and they ultimately failed. (289)
Although the farmers did form the populist party, in the end what really helped their cause was boycotting and forming alliances that would hit the pockets of the businessmen. I agree with Steven Colson when he says that the loss of the populist party hurt the farmers much less than a military crusade against one of their labor unions. The labor unions were the real power behind the rights of the farmers, and the loss of the populist party was a failure that did not destroy the cause of the farmers forever.
By engaging in electoral politics, farmers ensured their failure because the defeat of the Populist party in the election led to the destruction of the movement all together.
ReplyDeleteThe Farmer's Alliance was an extremely successful movement throughout the United States, attracting more than 400,000 followers at it's peak (Zinn 278). It continued to expand and gain more and more followers angry at the government that they believed favored the wealthy. The farmers were attempting to make a statement by forming this union against the big companies and government.
When it became the Populist Party, it would forever be a political party that would fall short of the Republicans and Democrats. Democrats and Republicans had been in existence far before the Populist Party and had more support from the electoral college than the brand new Populist Party. By getting involved in the political world, the farmers became extremely involved in the election and took the loss hard. The alliance that had once been so strong disintegrated when they heard word of the Populist lost and abandoned all hopes for reform.
As Kristina states, the unity of blacks and whites and the support of the South was not there so there was no hope of a Populist victory. William Jennings Bryan, the Populist candidate, was not popular enough in the South and North as well as between blacks and whites.
The Gilded Age sparked a nationwide movement for the bad. Rapid westward expansion, the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of the monopolies left poor farmers with few choices. In debt and out of feasible options, farmers during the Gilded Age turned to electoral politics to fight against monopolies--a move that ensured their demise.
ReplyDeleteThe Farmer's Alliance was the first successful attempt made by farmers to ensure their voices could be heard. Swelling to over 400,000 followers at its peak, the Alliance stood firm against monopolies and a government that assisted only the wealthy(Zinn 279). The alliance appeared to commit no wrong--until its evolution into the Populist Party, that is.
Formation of the Populist Party, sprouted from a need for political power wielded by the farmers, led to the downfall of their followers. This party fueled by the poor did not stand a chance against the corrupt and wealthy (Zinn 289) Unable to unite the blacks and whites of the South to secure a solid vote for their candidate, William Bryan, the party went into decline.
The farmer's attempt to enter the political field and crush their monopolizing opponents failed drastically because of their inability to play the same game as the wealthy. Without uniting sympathizing blacks and whites, the Populist Party could not propel their agenda and win the vote in the farmers' favor, leaving the wealthy successful once more.
Dani Leinwander makes a valid point when she states that the farmer's fared better when they focused on boycotts and alliances. Economically they were able to secure better rates for their crops, and better wages for their workers, a feat much more successful than that of their Populist Party attempt. If the Farmer's Alliance had been better organized and executed, the Gilded Age might not have been so dominated by the rich.
I disagree with the core of what Philip is saying, but he's right in the fact that even though pushing the farmers' agenda in politics was destined to fail, it was a reasonable course of action. Nothing else would have worked.
ReplyDeleteHe is also right that the Populist Party should have been more unified. Also, the grandfather clause did damage the party immensely and the black vote would have assisted them quite a bit, but not enough to triumph over the other parties.
In the fight against monopolies, farmers ensured their failure by engaging in electoral politics. Farmers suffered in this time because of the corrupt government, and the multimillionares. Also, during this period of time, as industries were prospering, agriculture was changing. (Zinn 253)
ReplyDeleteThe government was corrupt in that it posed as if it were supporting the people, but instead it was supporting, and accomidating the rich. An example of this is when the New York City bank had 129 million dollars worth of gold, and wanted the government to exchange the gold for bonds. President Grover Cleveland agreed to this, making the banks rich. (Zinn 256) The government chose to not support the farmers, but instead support the rich.
The populist party was formed by the people to go against this unfair treatment from the government, and the rich. Unfortunatly they lost the election, and hit a downfall. They also did not succeed in uniting the black and white people.
I agree with Kristina, in how she addresses the way President Clevland did not help the farmers out, and instead helped the rich.
The farmers of the Gilded Age were not politicians and were not wealthy enough to fight for restrictions on monopolies. And when they put their hand in that cookie jar, they lost their hand. Although there were more farmers than there were wealthy elite, there were more wealthy politicians than back-country farmer politicians-and sadly, the farmers did not have the money the wealthy elite did to influence politicians.
ReplyDeleteMany of the politicians in the Gilded Age were corrupt men who would do anything for a monopoly leader that promised any sort of money. One of these scandals was the Credit Mobilier scandal. The Credit Mobilier company was lead by a group of congressmen who had hired themselves to run the company and had also bribed other congressmen to keep their mouths shut. According to Zinn, the company was able to pay itself $79 million, an overpayment of $36 million (pg. 254).
But the farmers didn't have that kind of money to throw into the laps of corrupted politicians. So they had to suffer through debt until they became tenant farmers. But fight they did. In 1877, the Farmer's Alliance was created in Texas. And over the years, the Alliance grew to 200,000 members (pg. 286). So then why couldn't they fight for the elimination of monopolies? Because they were controlled by the monopolies who forced them into debt by raising farming supplies. And in the end, the wealthy controlled the politicians with their bribes.
The Farmers had numbers, but the wealthy had money. And in the Gilded Age, the person with the money always won in politics, and anyone who fought against them would be destroyed.
I agree with Shruthi, the Farmers Alliance, and eventually the Populist party simply did not have enough support to be a strong enough force in the White House. Without that needed alliance of whites and blacks, the farmers could not play the wealthy's game of bribery and dishonesty. The farmers were destined for demise when they tried to play the wealthy's game.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the fight against monopolies, farmers sealed their fate by trying to compete with politics. During the Gilded Age, politics were extremely corrupt, with the rich benefiting from scandals and the poor barely hanging on. The Populist Party wasn’t able to compete with the corrupt politics of the time, and so they failed.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning, the Farmer’s Alliance was hugely successful, encompassing forty-three states with 200,000 members by 1892 (Zinn, 286). The Alliance was successful in helping farmers nationwide: by banding together the farmers were able to cooperatively buy supplies for cheaper and sell their goods for more. But when the Populist Party was formed and James Weaver was nominated for president, the farmer’s cause was doomed. The loss of the election was a hard hit to the farmers, and resulted in the failure of the fight against monopolies.
But, after all, how could the farmers have competed with the legends of the time: Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan? They were hugely powerful, and virtually controlled their respective industries. Especially Rockefeller – his Standard Oil Company was an unprecedented achievement, and he ruthlessly crushed any competition. Small companies were either sold or crushed (Zinn, 257). And even before the huge monopolies, there were political scandals like the Credit Mobilier Scandal, which not only made enormous sums of money for those involved, but paid off Congressmen who were in on it.
So, how could the Populist Party be expected compete with the corrupted politics of the time? They couldn’t compete with the corruption that ruled the politics of the time of monopolies, and trying to compete with the political world ultimately ensured their failure in the fight against monopolies.
Steven makes a good point in stating that, at any other time, entering into politics might not have spelled failure for the farmers. The fact that the politics of the time were so corrupt was the core reason of failure, and at another time the Populist Party would have had a better chance of success in politics.
The farmers did ensure their failure by participating in electoral politics but that is only because they happened to be in the Gilded Age. Politicians were corrupt and had the power to swing votes to their favor. Along with that, monopolies did nothing but give them more power. Farmers had no money and there for no power over anyone else. Engaging in Politics was in no way a positive strategy for their cause.
ReplyDeleteWith no money farmers had no power in the Gilded Age. Really they had nothing to bribe with which was an extreme disadvantage. For example, in 1887 Cleveland vetoed a bill to give Famers in Texas relief with $100,000. That same year, he paid off the wealthy bondholders with $45 million. (Zinn 259) As a whole, politicians had all the power even over the president because they controlled the votes. With not one branch of government on the farmer’s side, politics was never going to help them get reform.
The Farmers Alliance did continue to grow until its peak of 400,000 members. (Zinn 278) And in some ways that is a lot of people. But compared to the country and all who were voting this was an extremely miniscule number. They were the minority in the country. There group was powerless even against “bosses” within towns. In this era politicians owned citizens with bribes and “helping” the poor. Democracy wasn’t true in this country during the Gilded Age because only the few wealthy were controlling the votes.
The Gilded Age was in no way a time for true politics. There were virtually no politicians that weren’t corrupt so the path of electoral politics for the farmers was in no way helpful. With no money they had no power to help their cause and get their reform.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the fight against monopolies, the farmers ensured their failure by engaging in politics.
ReplyDeleteFarmers tried to go against the monopolies but eventually led to their downfall.
The Gilded Age was an age where corruption was most often.
Most known scandal was the Credit Mobilier Scandal. According to Zinn, the Credit Mobilier company gave the Union Pacific $94 million dollars for construction when the actual cost was $44 million. Shares were sold cheaply to Congressmen to prevent investigation. (pg 255)
There was some motivation provided by the Farmer's Alliance. This caused farmers to join at incredible rates. According to Zinn, they had 200,000 members in 3000 alliances. By 1892 farmer lecturers had gone into 43 states and reached 2 million farm families. It was a drive based on the idea of cooperation, of farmers creating their own culture, their own political parties, gaining a respect not given them by the nation's powerful industrial and political leaders. (Zinn pg 286)
They later managed to build the People's party or the Populist Party. This eventually marked their downfall in the politics race against monopolies and the rich. The Populist Party lacked equal distribution from the white and black farmers to help support William Jennings Bryan. (Zinn pg 288-289)From here onwards, it was all downhill.
A major difference between the farmers and the monopolies is money. Farmers lacked money, and this hurt their cause.
According to Zinn, Farmers had to borrow money, hoping that the prices of their harvests would stay high, so they could pay the bank for the loan, the railroad for transportation, the grain merchant for handling their grain, the storage elevator for storing it. But they found the prices for their produce going down, and the prices for transportation and loans going up, because the individual farmer could not control the prices of his grain, while the monopolist railroad and the monopolist banker could charge what they liked. (zinn pg 283)
According to Zinn, farmers could not pay the money so eventually they became tenants and were not able to pay their debts (zinn pg 284)
The only difference between the farmers and the rich people was money. Money is what caused farmers to fall into deep debts while the rich could put price tags on whatever they want and they get all the profits. Money provided valuable in the fight for politics which downplayed the farmers chances in politics and thus proved why the farmers ensured their failure by engaging in politics. The Gilded Age was truly a corrupted age and has unequal social statuses and money distributions. This did not allow the people of the lower classes to have their voices heard in the politics.
I agree with Kristina on the topic of the black and white farmers. I like the way she organized that topic and brought valuable evidence to the table. I also like the piece of information on Grover Cleveland and how unfair he was in his distribution of money in which he vetoed the bill to give 100,000 to Texas farmers while he gave 45 million to the rich
Farmers led themselves to failure by engaging in electoral politics, during their fight against monopolies. Politics of the Gilded Age were too overrun with bribery and money-lust. The government was not made up of manual laborers, but wealthy men looking for more efficient ways of gaining even more wealth.
ReplyDeleteWhen "steam and electricity replaced human muscle" (Zinn 253) the begrudged farmers formed alliances, such as the Farmers Alliance, to express grievances and try to take action. What the alliances did with boycotting and strikes were successful in gaining a bigger alliance and essentially more power. This worked because it was out in the open where the people could see. It went wrong when they turned to politics.
When the Populist Party was formed, their motives were exactly what a majority of the people and politicians wouldn't vote for. The economy seemed to be doing well with all the large industries coming in, and money drove the people. People working in factories outnumbered those working on farms, and they would vote for what benefited them monetarily. With so many politicians being paid by monopolies, they did everything they could to keep the monopolies in power. Though many politicians were caught in the act of taking briberies, such as in the Credit Mobilier Scandal, it did not stop them, and wealth meant power in this age.
The party was not even able to gain the support of Southern African Americans, so they weren't even able to gain much support outside of the government. This later led to an eventual racism toward blacks within the Populist Party. With the party being filled with poorer Americans, they didn't stand a chance against the corrupt political system. (Zinn 289) They were not able to use money to their advantage, and wouldn't have if they could, because it would be against what they thought.
The farmers went into a political system ruled by corruption, not willing to be corrupt. Since they started at the bottom end in majority, they didn't realize they had to play the same game in order to change the rules. This is what led to their demise, and made it even worse for the rest of the farmers in the government.
Morgan bring up a good point in saying that "The farmers did ensure their failure by participating in electoral politics but that is only because they happened to be in the Gilded Age." The problems that the farmers faced were mainly due to the time period and the outcome might have been very different had it been in a another time.
ReplyDeleteMary Ellen Lease, a Populist speaker from Kansas, once said, "[America] is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street" (288). Lease's assertion sums up the Gilded Age of America. During the Gilded Age, corruption and monopolies raged in everyday American life. The people who struck it rich like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan, controlled the majority of the wealth during the time period. The poor, on the other hand, fell into debt and messes of credit. The poor workers resorted to strikes and labor unions. Farmers eventually formed the Populist Party to voice their concerns and assert their rights in government. Farmers ensured their failure against monopolies by engaging in electoral politics; by siding with the Democratic Party during the Election of 1896, the farmers' movement died.
ReplyDeleteFarming was not profitable for the farmer by any means. While monopolized railroads could charge whatever they pleased for rates at the time, farmers could control neither the price of their crop, nor the price that they had to pay to ship it via railroad (283). The price of crops thus deflated, and the farmer usually had to turn to using credit in a crop-lien system to be able to grow food and survive. Farmers grew more and more into debt as they used credit, especially since the amount of money in the market was increasingly harder to acquire (284). Farmers turned to the Farmer's Alliance, and eventually the Populist Party. Industrial workers, however, combated reduced wages with strikes and labor unions. While strikes sometimes turned out successful and led to reduced hours and higher wages, the rich still had the upper hand. While more and more immigrants came into America, the amount of people available for work increased. Thus, some strikes could be broken up without a negative effect for the employer. Labor Unions, like the Knights of Labor, popped up to advocate the eight-hour work day and other benefits for factory workers.
Industrial workers were not nearly as supportive of the Populist Party as the farmers were. Through the Populist Party, the farmers elected James Weaver for president. While Weaver was able to accumulate one million popular votes, he ultimately lost (289). This action connected the Populist movement to the voting system. It was able to unite the farmers, but could unite neither factory workers and farmers, nor black and whites. Blacks typically were apart of the Republican Party because of Lincoln and his abolitionist movement.
The Election of 1896 was ultimately the final blow to the Populist Movement. In that election, the Populists sided with Democrats -- yet again, creating a divide between white and black farmers -- and supported William Jennings Bryan (294). The Populist Movement was ultimately destroyed by this choice when the Democrats lost to McKinley in the election. All ties to Populism were destroyed by the Democratic Party after the election. Politics were corrupt during this age. By uniting with the Democrats, the Populists turned their movement over from agrarian farmers to politicians – the wealthy class who benefited from monopolies.
As Kristina Mai points out, the Populists failed to win the blacks over into the Populist movement, which also worked to ensure their failure. Siding with the Democrats in the Election of 1896 alienated the blacks who supported the Republican Party and is a factor in the defeat of the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, in that election.
With the end of the Civil War and reconstruction came a huge economic shift. The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century saw a huge outbreak in trusts and monopolies, largely supported by Rockefeller. Because of often corrupt and unfair systems such as these, the lower class of the South were at an extreme disadvantage economically. The Farmers' Alliance was founded to combat these issues, but was destined to fail upon it's decision to achieve it's goals through electoral politics. Despite a rapidly increasing member count (Zinn 286), these poor farmers didn't have the money to bribe the government, like Credit Mobilier did with Congress (Zinn 255).
ReplyDeleteThe Alliance hoped to see change upon it's transformation to the Populist Party, but things only got worse from there on. Losing their big presidential election by a landslide was only the first of problems for the newly-formed party. The government, still (and always will be) ran by the rich, did everything in their power to crush this uprising of rebellious and meddlesome farmers (Zinn 258). Through the monopolies, they raised the prices on farming supplies through the roof, putting the already desperate farmers further into debt. Tenant farmership, a revival of serfdom from medieval Britian, became a rising trend, despite the harsh slave-like conditions, it was the last resort for many farmers.
Bianca concludes her response by stating that in the gilded age, it was the people with money who always ran the government. I would like to add onto this by saying that even today the rich are in power, and money is the force behind election. Obama's supporters may have been statistically poorer than those of McCain, but the Democratic party, shown particularly through the unprecedented campaign budget, was much better off than the republicans.
ReplyDeleteIn a time of oppression and pseudo-slavery for farmers, farmers banded together to gain acceptable conditions to survive and prosper. But as the masses of agricultural workers came together, leadership had to be installed to keep order and guide the will of them. Politics, in the form of the Populist movement, was undertaken, leading to some success, but not "ensured failure".
ReplyDeleteAn early example in Zinn mentions a type of monopoly that farmers faced before the establishment of the Farmers Alliance. The crop-lien system required farmers to purchase supplies and equipment from a designated merchant (Zinn p 284) at harvest time. Farmers paid for these supplies with credit and would pay it back with profits from the harvest. This was almost impossible for the farmers, and as the seasons passed, farmers fell more and more into debt, eventually leading to the repo of their land and having to become a tenant farmer. The Farmers Alliance was a cooperative movement where farmers bought supplies together for lower prices and selling bulk cotton. (Zinn p 285) With this mission in mind, the popularity soared.
With the growing participation in the Farmers Alliance, 2 million farming families in 1892 (Zinn p 286), as a whole they gained the power to influence and spread their ideas. Starting with the Cleburne Demands and eventually the elections in 1890, the Populists began a path of mediocracy. There were no real victories, no real failures. They installed many Congressional members, governors, and legislatures with an organized party due to no backing from the Republicans or Democrats (Zinn p 287). Later down the timeline, 1892, James Weaver, an Iowa Populist, was nominated by the Populists for President, gaining millions of votes, but not even enough for victory (Zinn p 288). Major victory by the Populists during the elections of 1890 and 1892 might have changed the spirit of America, but their lack of victory does not necessary mean "ensured failure".
Reading over Madeleine's response, I have to disagree with her opinion. Though involving themselves in politics was a move that put them in a what a "majority of the people and politicians wouldn't vote for" politics was the only choice they had. Unorganized resistance around the country would only lead to pockets of success. Riots, violence, and strikes do get the attention of many, but all of them lead to the execution of the ringleaders and periods of time where the workers refuse to rise for suitable conditions.
Swear I clicked post comment at 11:59 P.M.
ReplyDeleteIn the fight against monopolies, farmers ensured their failure by engaging in electoral politics. During the Gilded Age, “to be poor a sign of personal failure, and that the only way upward for a poor person was to climb the ranks of the rich by extraordinary effort and extraordinary luck.” The poor and the rich have always had gaps between them, but during the Gilded Age, the gap kept increasing and while company owners such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan got richer, the poor immigrants, farmers, and wage workers worked to earn wages that would barely support their families. The monopolies created by the robber barons created harsh environments for their competitors and forced the competitors to go out of business or to join with the company. The monopolies prospered because the government wasn’t able to or fully willing to shut down the monopolies. The corporations, in order to stay in business, bribed key politicians and used their massive amounts of gold to push the politicians in their favor. In Zinn, Karl Marx talks about how in a capitalist state, politicians “pretend neutrality to maintain order, but serve the interests of the rich.” The farmers, after losing money and falling into debt due to the loss of their jobs due to industrialization, tried to fight back at the large corporations which controlled the market and politics of the country. The government had raised tariffs to high rates to benefit the corporations which had given them graceful gifts to keep them at their side; these high tariff rates benefitted corporations who could keep out foreign competition, but the farmers had to sell their goods in the market, so they lost money due to the high tariffs.
ReplyDeleteThe farmers decided to battle against the monopolies by going into politics, but their formations of the parties such as the Farmer’s Alliances and the Populist Party ultimately failed because of divisions in the party and the failure to unite the parties to fight against the monopolies. Also, the government during the Gilded Age had gone corrupt and because the corporations controlled the government through their vast amounts of wealth, the farmers weren’t able to make ground on the monopolies by using their votes to get their politicians in power. Even when Grover Cleveland got into power, he helped the corporations succeed though he was a Democrat.
I agree with Jacy that though William Jennings Bryan became the presidential nominee for the Populist Party, because they weren’t able to make a stand in the Election of 1896, they fell apart. The Populist Party was backed by many, but it also had its share of divisions and due to the divisions of the blacks, immigrants, and farmers, they weren’t able win over the monstrous monopolies that controlled the government.
In the fight against monopolies, farmers ensured their failure by engaging in electoral politics. During the rise of industrial politics, the common laborer held little personal value in the eye of the corporate employer. Powerful corporation leaders sat on massive hordes of cash with which they were free to wield freely. They milked every last ounce of strength out of their workforce to gain maximum profit, and used this money to bribe politicians and other government officials into acting favorably on behalf of their company or political machine.
ReplyDeleteIn the Industrial Age, businesses sought quicker and more expeditious ways of transporting their goods and services. To this effect, corporations strived for all things "bigger, better, and faster." The cultivation of steel and iron for railroads was a main boon of the industrial revolution, and brought massive profits and gave rise to many a wealthy railroad mogul. These companies gained sinful amounts of power. Needless to say, if a group of farmers were to rise up against them, they would be ruthlessly crushed by the moneyed interests of the conglomerates which manifested themselves in the U.S. government. However, this did not stop laborers from organizing against big business. At its peak, the Farmers' Alliance held about 400,000 members, hardly an insignificant force. (Zinn 278) Along with numerous other workers' unions, the Farmers' Alliance fought against the oppressive conditions of factory, railroad, and farm life and stood their ground against the extremely powerful corporations.
After the formation of the Populist party, the farmers seemed a formidable force against corporations. Ultimately, however, the poorer farmers lost their valiantly fought battle against the massive trusts and the Populist party vanished. The Populist party met its demise in light of the fact that they did not have nearly the resources that the corporations had. (Zinn 289)
Shruti's makes a valid assertion when she states that "the farmer's attempt to enter the political field and crush their monopolizing opponents failed drastically because of their inability to play the same game as the wealthy." The working-class employees, even when united in strong numbers, still did not fare well against the massive and all-powerful corporations.
In the fight against monopolies, farmers most definitely ensured their failure by engaging in electoral politics. Politics in general are a very biased affair. No matter the “equality” and freedoms granted by federal documents, the rich--aka Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan, who controlled the majority of the wealth during the time period--, get what they want simply because money is power. Indebted and impoverished farmers, at the time, were of course unhappy with this ordeal and naively believed that they had a chance to overrun monopolies by getting involved in government affairs. They at first started strikes and labor unions, and eventually formed the Populist Party to gain more attention and assert their rights in government. Unfortunately, the Party and the farmers’ movement were unsuccessful and powerless against the incredibly rich and massive corporations.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how hard farmers tried to revolt and rise in society, rich monopoly owners still had the upper hand. Railroads could charge any amount they wanted for farmers to ship their goods, and the farmers couldn’t protest because that was their only means of making money. The farmers realized the price was so high, they had to start borrowing money from the bank. Unfortunately, they found “the prices of their produce going down and the prices of transportation and bank loans going up,” highlighting how inferior they were to monopolies (Zinn 283). They then turned to the National Farmer's Alliance, which was quite substantial with 400,000 members. The Alliance fought against the unfair conditions of factory and railroad workers as well as the impoverished farmers. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the NFA was still of great importance in the farmers movement for change.
Through the Populist Party, the farmers tried to get what they wanted politically, but their candidate, James Weaver, lost (Zinn 289). The Election of 1896 was ultimately the final blow to the farmers’ efforts. They had tried to rise in politics, and for a while, seemed a powerful force. However, politics are and always will be a biased affair, so in the long run, the farmers’ loss was inevitable.
I agree with Emily when she states "farmers couldn't compete against corruption". Politics were indeed corrupt at the time and no matter the efforts of the farmers, the corporate monopolies would still prevail, simply because they were rich and had the upper hand of power.
ReplyDeleteIn the fight against monopolies, farmers ensured their failure by engaging in electoral politics. Monopolies definitely had the most resources in ensuring their victory and did so in the Gilded Age.
ReplyDeleteFarmers would have to struggle in their fight against monopolies. First being promised 160 acres of land from the homestead act, they knew for the most part that they would not be able to live there for 5 years. Trying to get enough money, farmers were mostly on debt when trying to pay for their land. They would often be at the mercy of monopolies because they owed the monopolies money; they also bought their machinery from monopolies often paying for it with debt. Such as in page 287 when they describe, "The farmer had to buy on credit, knowing the $200 would be twice as hard to get." On page 287 it also describes that 90 percent of the farmers lived on credit. Farmers struggled on their fight. They would owe more money every year until their farm was taken away and they became a tenant. Such as stated on page 284, "By 1880, 25 percent of all farms were rented by tenants, and the number kept rising." The monopolies ensured their victory since the beginning because they gave away lots of amounts of their earnings to help educational institutions. This at first may seem like an unevil thing to do but they trained the middlemen in the American system, teachers and doctors and highly educated people in attempts to gain loyal buffers against trouble. On page 294, it describes that, "Electoral Politics brought into the top leadership the political brokers instead of the agrarian radicals." This showed the most because it was the first massive use of money in an election campaign. Establishment made sure that the Democrates were dominated, and populism would disintegrate.
This is baggio, i also use this for AP English, i thought since AP English blog post was due on 3/20 that the APUSH blog was also due on 3/20, my mistake.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Morgan Theis that, because farmers were broke they had no money to bribe. It states on page 295, that it was the first time that they were using massive amounts of money to gain votes. Imagine if they did have the money. I'm pretty sure that they would have won. Yet i'm also sure that many farmers were also bribed in their need of money to vote against the democrats. The voting was unfair and mostly one sided, by participating, they made sure of a dire hatred towards the farmer class and were fighting a losing battle. Do or die i suppose is what the farmers were thinking.
ReplyDelete