The Progressive Era was a period in history in the United States that was dominated by ideas of change from 1890’s to 1920’s. The historians of this time had many differentiating opinions of how progressivism impacted America. This paper will be covering various viewpoints from historians such as Mowry, Kolko and Connolly.
Who were the progressives? This answer to this questions is based on the perspectives on the historians. According to Mowry, in his writes of Progressivism: Middle Class Disillusionment, he believes the progressives were individuals that came from middle-class individuals. They came from educated families that typically went to college. They called these individuals with pride the ¨solid middle class¨(Mowry 255). …show more content…
They believed that by having a strong government this would make America strong. This being said, it would lead greater federal regulation resulting in individuals getting jobs easier. Also, he believed that by having strong business this would allow the government to be strong and economic opportunities to increase for individuals. Kolko labels the progressive era as an era of big business. The hope was to for the wealthy businessmen to increase their own business in hope of decreasing competition with others. The politicians and the businessman worked together to gain their own goals to become strong in their own ideas of what should make America strong. In doing this, they had their own personal agenda to promote their own businesses. Theses historians had a long history together as they were typically friends, grew up together and had married into one another's families. I agree with Kokomo and his perspective when he writes, he existence of Establishment during the Progressive Era was convenient, even essential to the functional attainment of political Era was convenient and essential, to the attainment of political capitalism¨(Kokomo 31). The historians of this time were persuasive and worked together on their own …show more content…
He writes his beliefs based on the chronological order on the issues of Boston. He believes that the historians of this time were corrupt individuals. They presented themselves as leaders, responding to the growth and needs of the people but in reality they were doing illegal things. Also, that there was corruption in the government during this time. Specifically at the city hall where elections were fixed, political power was taken from the working-middle class. Connolly writes, A closer look reveals that many ethnic leaders found in Progressivism and its assault on city politic a formula to pursue their own needs¨(Connolly 172). I agree with Connolly when he shares his insight on the corruptness of the government. It appears that the policalness of the individuals incharge used illegal ways to promote their own agenda to strengthen their ideas and undermined the
Who were the progressives? This answer to this questions is based on the perspectives on the historians. According to Mowry, in his writes of Progressivism: Middle Class Disillusionment, he believes the progressives were individuals that came from middle-class individuals. They came from educated families that typically went to college. They called these individuals with pride the ¨solid middle class¨(Mowry 255). …show more content…
They believed that by having a strong government this would make America strong. This being said, it would lead greater federal regulation resulting in individuals getting jobs easier. Also, he believed that by having strong business this would allow the government to be strong and economic opportunities to increase for individuals. Kolko labels the progressive era as an era of big business. The hope was to for the wealthy businessmen to increase their own business in hope of decreasing competition with others. The politicians and the businessman worked together to gain their own goals to become strong in their own ideas of what should make America strong. In doing this, they had their own personal agenda to promote their own businesses. Theses historians had a long history together as they were typically friends, grew up together and had married into one another's families. I agree with Kokomo and his perspective when he writes, he existence of Establishment during the Progressive Era was convenient, even essential to the functional attainment of political Era was convenient and essential, to the attainment of political capitalism¨(Kokomo 31). The historians of this time were persuasive and worked together on their own …show more content…
He writes his beliefs based on the chronological order on the issues of Boston. He believes that the historians of this time were corrupt individuals. They presented themselves as leaders, responding to the growth and needs of the people but in reality they were doing illegal things. Also, that there was corruption in the government during this time. Specifically at the city hall where elections were fixed, political power was taken from the working-middle class. Connolly writes, A closer look reveals that many ethnic leaders found in Progressivism and its assault on city politic a formula to pursue their own needs¨(Connolly 172). I agree with Connolly when he shares his insight on the corruptness of the government. It appears that the policalness of the individuals incharge used illegal ways to promote their own agenda to strengthen their ideas and undermined the