|
After a long derail about reconstruction in the GOP rebuilding thread, I figured that DnD could definitely use a thread for tangential discussions about American history. This forum in particular touches on American history all the time, so I think we should basically have an ask/tell type thread right here. If you have any questions about anything throughout the history of the US, or stumbled across some interesting factoid that you'd like to share with others and have some discussion about, this is the place. If a conversation on history breaks out in another thread that isn't really the place and people are getting pissy, you can move that over here as well. If you are working in the field of history, while your insight would be appreciated, there's a thread specifically for career advice and things related to that in case that's more in line with what you are looking for. I live in the library: the history thread For some resources, check out the Book Thread and Reading Room. The OP has tons of them. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Oct 28, 2013 |
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
So looking at your avatar Volkerball a question occurred to me, though it's a pretty lightweight one I figure it still fits. Why is it that the US developed a bunch of its own sports and doesn't pay particular attention to the rest of the world's? Conversely whilst there's certainly an argument to be made that among the reasons footie is globally popular is because all you need is a ball and a couple of sweaters for goalposts, why did the world beyond America adopt rugby more than handegg, ignore baseball almost entirely, and only pay passing attention to basketball for the most part? I can understand why a frozen wasteland like Canada would go in for ice hockey but there doesn't seem to be a concomitant reason that the US would develop along the lines it has, sports-wise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 11:08
|
|
|
Isolation, mostly. Football and baseball were derivative of British games, but remember that football and baseball came into their own and were pretty well defined by the end of the 19th century. So, rugby and American football for example were allowed to develop separately because the people playing it in Britain couldn't really play with the people in the States. You had two sets of people coming up with different rules. The US has also been a historically stand-offish about culturally embracing our neighbors in Central and South America. It's only now that we're embracing that the US is a nation with clear Latino elements with Spanish being our unofficial second language. So, while some cultural elements like baseball were embraced by Central America, we didn't necessarily embrace their taste for soccer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 12:29
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:So looking at your avatar Volkerball a question occurred to me, though it's a pretty lightweight one I figure it still fits. Baseball hasn't been ignored. It's popular in parts of Latin America and Asia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 12:50
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Baseball hasn't been ignored. It's popular in parts of Latin America and Asia. Only because of our own imperial expansion. If you play baseball outside of the States at some point you were occupied by American soldiers. It's how we exported it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Only because of our own imperial expansion. If you play baseball outside of the States at some point you were occupied by American soldiers. It's how we exported it. I'm pretty sure baseball was first exported to and established itself in Japan during the Meiji period, well before WWII and US occupation. There was a brief flutter of interest in Qing China, too, but that was mostly just during the Self-Strengthening Movement period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I'm pretty sure baseball was first exported to and established itself in Japan during the Meiji period, well before WWII and US occupation. There was a brief flutter of interest in Qing China, too, but that was mostly just during the Self-Strengthening Movement period. Ah ok! To be fair I'm more aware of the Central American/Caribbean interest in the game. I had just assumed that the Japanese played because of WWII.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Ah ok! To be fair I'm more aware of the Central American/Caribbean interest in the game. I had just assumed that the Japanese played because of WWII. Baseball was imported to Asia largely by Japanese studying in America (and then through Japanese colonialism to South Korea and Taiwan) Baseball made it to Cuba through a combination of Cubans in America and American sailors in Cuba while Cuba was under Spanish rule. Baseball was seen as a national sport to replace Spanish bullfighting. Much Carribean baseball came from a mixture of Cubans and Americans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I'm pretty sure baseball was first exported to and established itself in Japan during the Meiji period, Cool related thing, if you want try pre-prohibition style American cocktails Japan is the place to get them because of this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Baseball was imported to Asia largely by Japanese studying in America (and then through Japanese colonialism to South Korea and Taiwan) How much of that broad acceptance within the US Latin/Caribbean-American community was due to the integration of the league starting in the 40's? Given that it was entirely likely that many people emigrating to the US from places like Cuba, Haiti, or the DR (the last two especially) had reasonably dark skin is there evidence Baseball was seen as a sort of equalizer or haven of (tenuous) color-blindness for people who were met with hatred and discrimination in nearly every other aspect of daily life?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Isolation, mostly. Football and baseball were derivative of British games, but remember that football and baseball came into their own and were pretty well defined by the end of the 19th century. So, rugby and American football for example were allowed to develop separately because the people playing it in Britain couldn't really play with the people in the States. You had two sets of people coming up with different rules. I expect this will change over time, not only because of a growing population of second generation Latino-Americans but because soccer is a popular youth sport in schools and youth leagues which will lead to greater cultural acceptance among other demographics. My point being that there is a strong link in America between the educational system and the popularity of sports.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I expect this will change over time, not only because of a growing population of second generation Latino-Americans but because soccer is a popular youth sport in schools and youth leagues which will lead to greater cultural acceptance among other demographics. My point being that there is a strong link in America between the educational system and the popularity of sports. Soccer has been big among kids though for 20+ years(well at least up here in the north east), It hasn't lead to any particular rise in soccer interest among adults beyond brief fluttering during the world cup. e: I meant specifically among younger people. We grew up when soccer was popular for kids but I don't see any significant rise in soccer popularity in our generation over our parents. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I don't see any significant rise in soccer popularity in our generation over our parents.  You're wrong, of course. MLS draws on the order of NHL/NBA per game WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:
What specific game is this that there's a literal red carpet on the field?(also, it looks like they couldn't even fill the upper decks, but then again there's only a fragment of them in the picture)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Soccer has been big among kids though for 20+ years(well at least up here in the north east), It hasn't lead to any particular rise in soccer interest among adults beyond brief fluttering during the world cup. e: I meant specifically among younger people. We grew up when soccer was popular for kids but I don't see any significant rise in soccer popularity in our generation over our parents. I don't know who your parents were contemporary with in regard to popular soccer players but there have been people like Hamm, Valderama, and Beckham to spur popularity of the sport in the US, and to some degree they've been successful but in reasons largely outside soccer. I believe Mia Hamm now coaches the Women's soccer team and they're pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:
Yeah but soccer plays in larger stadiums than the NBA or NHL. The Los Angeles Galaxy's stadium seats 27,000 while the Staples Center seats 19,000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:What specific game is this that there's a literal red carpet on the field?(also, it looks like they couldn't even fill the upper decks, but then again there's only a fragment of them in the picture) Theyre playing in a giant NFL stadium. The Sounders sometimes draw upwards of 40000 fans a game which is unprecedented for American soccer. I know MLS doesnt much attention but it has developed into a relatively popular niche sport
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Soccer has been big among kids though for 20+ years(well at least up here in the north east), It hasn't lead to any particular rise in soccer interest among adults beyond brief fluttering during the world cup. e: I meant specifically among younger people. We grew up when soccer was popular for kids but I don't see any significant rise in soccer popularity in our generation over our parents. Football was big in the Ivies for decades before it filtered down to Real America. As someone who grew up in the South in the 80's, soccer is something only Latinos played. Now it's almost more popular than youth football. Amused to Death posted:What specific game is this that there's a literal red carpet on the field?(also, it looks like they couldn't even fill the upper decks, but then again there's only a fragment of them in the picture) MLB doesn't fill the upper decks in most places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Theyre playing in a giant NFL stadium. The Sounders sometimes draw upwards of 40000 fans a game which is unprecedented for American soccer. I know MLS doesnt much attention but it has developed into a relatively popular niche sport The only issue with the sport in the US currently is that its viewership numbers aren't fully in line with attendance numbers. Another thing is that while the collegiate level has gained more interest it isn't the behemoth that Gridiron/Baksetball are which culturally helps reinforce the sport in ways that professional leagues can not. Edit: Thats probably something that should be mentioned, within the US lower level play is not also professional. If you don't watch professional play of a sport you watch the collegiate level and good players from college go into the professional. If you don't make the cut at that change there really isn't anywhere for you to go because there is no such thing as regulation in American sports and the existence and passion for college sports prevents the formation of competing lower talent leagues. Barudak fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Can you guys tell me about why the major parties shifted? My limited understanding was that at one point the majority of the country was Democratic because the New Deal helped a lot of people that mattered (poor whites, elderly whites, etc) but then the civil rights act pissed off a lot of southern Democrats (Dixiecrats?) into switching to the Republican party. I would appreciate any book recommendations on the subject as well. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Can you guys tell me about why the major parties shifted? My limited understanding was that at one point the majority of the country was Democratic because the New Deal helped a lot of people that mattered (poor whites, elderly whites, etc) but then the civil rights act pissed off a lot of southern Democrats (Dixiecrats?) into switching to the Republican party. Yep. The shift started a bit before the Civil Rights era but that legislation was the nail in the coffin for Democrats in the South. Republicans cynically saw the opportunity to cater to the racist, white, disaffected Southern voter and did so with gusto. It really is quite remarkable how quickly it all happened, and just goes to show how utterly terrified Southern whites were of losing their power when the Fed finally stepped in and said "OK, this Jim Crow poo poo you've been doing for nearly a century has just got to end."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Football was big in the Ivies for decades before it filtered down to Real America. As someone who grew up in the South in the 80's, soccer is something only Latinos played. Now it's almost more popular than youth football. And when I grew up in the NE in the 90's soccer was already that popular, but it doesn't seem to have translated over into adulthood. Although that raises a question of whether or not people lost interest in soccer or the fact soccer isn't marketed to them really to consume as adults. quote:MLB doesn't fill the upper decks in most places. No doubt, but there's usually at least some people. But wiki says that picture was from the Sounder's inaugural game and they now draw 40,000+ on average, so I guess they're doing a good job at filling the upper decks. Better than the Mariners at least. Orange_Lazarus posted:Can you guys tell me about why the major parties shifted? My limited understanding was that at one point the majority of the country was Democratic because the New Deal helped a lot of people that mattered (poor whites, elderly whites, etc) but then the civil rights act pissed off a lot of southern Democrats (Dixiecrats?) into switching to the Republican party. Yeah, that's the simplified form. Johnson pushed the VRA and Civil Rights Act knowing it could fracture the Democratic party as southern Democrats were of course opposed. And it did, and southern Democrats were pissed. Republicans then began a campaign to win those southern voters were felt betrayed by the Democratic party. By the 90's it had been fully completed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Just to illustrate how huge that shift was, because it's always incredible to me, here's the results of the 1956 presidential election and here's the results of the 1964 presidential election. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
How are u posted:Yep. The shift started a bit before the Civil Rights era but that legislation was the nail in the coffin for Democrats in the South. Republicans cynically saw the opportunity to cater to the racist, white, disaffected Southern voter and did so with gusto. It really is quite remarkable how quickly it all happened, and just goes to show how utterly terrified Southern whites were of losing their power when the Fed finally stepped in and said "OK, this Jim Crow poo poo you've been doing for nearly a century has just got to end." The New Deal coalition while massive, was incredibly shaky. Southern Democrats were totally in support of it only so long as it helped "the right sort of people." In order to secure their votes FDR gave up on anti-lynching legislation (why do we need an extra law to stop murder? The South) but it still sent a rather clear message that the Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats were not heading in the same direction. So 1948 rolls around and we have the Dixiecrats forming. These utterly reprehensible slime of human beings pushed the realignment to the forefront by explicitly rejecting Harry S Truman and then the Republican candidate. When they couldn't prevent the election of Truman they went frothing mad and began to work behind the scenes to build a new coalition for national elections. Fun times, look at the election maps from 1956-1964. The map does an almost complete 180 in terms of district control in those two periods with one intermediary election of chaos in the south. Edit: Beaten. Look at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:
Interestingly, WWII is why it isn't called "baseball" in Japanese anymore; it used to be called ベースボール (beisuboru, just a phonetic transliteration) until anti-US and western sentiment took hold due to WWII, and they liberty cabbaged / freedom fried up a version using native Japanese characters, creating the term 野球 (yakyu), which basically means fieldball
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Barudak posted:The New Deal coalition while massive, was incredibly shaky. Southern Democrats were totally in support of it only so long as it helped "the right sort of people." In order to secure their votes FDR gave up on anti-lynching legislation (why do we need an extra law to stop murder? The South) but it still sent a rather clear message that the Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats were not heading in the same direction. Keep in mind as well that Goldwater was never a guy to go out and straight up drop the N-bomb. He was just a freedom-lovin' American who thought the mean ol' feds had no place telling Woolworths they had to let them blacks eat at the counter. Just think of a slightly more ideologically consistent Rand Paul. Hated the CRA because of 'freedom' but also hated the religious right's social crusade under the same 'stop telling people what to do' token.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
And the thing is it's not like Southern whites ever did lose their political and social power, they were just forced to grudging treat African Americans slightly less odiously and switch to a more covert rather than overt form of racism. Now, today, they are finally coming to the cusp of truly losing control and only because the demographics of the entire country are changing. As the party that went 'all in' on the White vote with no backup plan, the Republicans are wailing and gnashing their teeth because all of the solutions to their problems involve accepting the fact that the United States is not white nation. I mean, Republicans wail and gnash teeth all the time, but finally they've got a real reason to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Only because of our own imperial expansion. If you play baseball outside of the States at some point you were occupied by American soldiers. It's how we exported it. There's also peaceful cultural diffusion, even if it can result in mutation of the rules. Pesäpallo, a derivative of US baseball (which the name is a translation of) and Scandinavian långboll, is the national sport of Finland, and its inventor got the inspiration from the time he spent living in the States. It was specifically developed and promoted after WW1 as instilling useful skills to the boys of the newly independent Republic of Finland - accurate throwing hand and a quick dash from cover to cover being important for early 20th century infantrymen, indeed the game was first adopted by Suojeluskunta units (an anti-communist auxiliary military organization formed during the civil war of 1918) from where it spread to school curriculum (because school athletics teachers tended to be Suojeluskunta members).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
How are u posted:Yep. The shift started a bit before the Civil Rights era but that legislation was the nail in the coffin for Democrats in the South. Republicans cynically saw the opportunity to cater to the racist, white, disaffected Southern voter and did so with gusto. It really is quite remarkable how quickly it all happened, and just goes to show how utterly terrified Southern whites were of losing their power when the Fed finally stepped in and said "OK, this Jim Crow poo poo you've been doing for nearly a century has just got to end." Well, the Civil Rights Act was the penultimate act splitting the Dixiecrats, but we didn't see a wholesale shift in the South until decades later. Remember, George Wallace ran for the Democratic nomination in 1972, shifting away from supporting outright segregation and Jim Crow, and instead ran on a platform that was really the first true "Southern Strategy" campaign. He talked about gutting welfare for people who didn't deserve it. Gutting funds to minority schools and inner city programs. As a result, Wallace was a legitimate threat to win the nomination. He drew a following amongst lower-middle class white men, which led him to win Michigan and come close to Humphrey/McGovern in other states. Had Wallace not been shot, who knows what he could've done. Wallace voters stayed home that year, but didn't swarm to Nixon. Just 4 years later, Jimmy Carter swept the south. Carter didn't actively promote Wallace-esqe southern strategy type stuff in his campaign, but it didn't matter Carter was a southern Governor running against a hopelessly unpopular President. Ronald Reagan was paying attention, which is why four years later, he adopted the Southern Strategy in toto. He even kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, talking about states rights. (Philadelphia being the location where civil rights workers were lynched not too many years past). And as Lee Atwater explained, "You start out in 1954 by saying, “friend of the family, friend of the family, friend of the family.” By 1968 you can't say “friend of the family” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “friend of the family, friend of the family."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Well, the Civil Rights Act was the penultimate act splitting the Dixiecrats, but we didn't see a wholesale shift in the South until decades later. Remember, George Wallace ran for the Democratic nomination in 1972, shifting away from supporting outright segregation and Jim Crow, and instead ran on a platform that was really the first true "Southern Strategy" campaign. He talked about gutting welfare for people who didn't deserve it. Gutting funds to minority schools and inner city programs. What is interesting about 1972 is that on the other side of the spectrum you also have the first black candidate, Shirley Chisholm, ever running for president on a major party ticket and actually winning a state's popular vote.(New Jersey)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Can you guys tell me about why the major parties shifted? My limited understanding was that at one point the majority of the country was Democratic because the New Deal helped a lot of people that mattered (poor whites, elderly whites, etc) but then the civil rights act pissed off a lot of southern Democrats (Dixiecrats?) into switching to the Republican party. Alexander Lamis' The Two Party South and Southern Politics in the 1990s cover the transition down through individual states. Fun fact: the latter is the source of Lee Atwater's "friend of the family friend of the family friend of the family" quote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Alexander Lamis' The Two Party South and Southern Politics in the 1990s cover the transition down through individual states. Fun fact: the latter is the source of Lee Atwater's "friend of the family friend of the family friend of the family" quote. http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy here is the actual audio of the interview. its fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:There's also peaceful cultural diffusion, even if it can result in mutation of the rules. Pesäpallo, a derivative of US baseball (which the name is a translation of) and Scandinavian långboll, is the national sport of Finland, and its inventor got the inspiration from the time he spent living in the States. It was specifically developed and promoted after WW1 as instilling useful skills to the boys of the newly independent Republic of Finland - accurate throwing hand and a quick dash from cover to cover being important for early 20th century infantrymen, indeed the game was first adopted by Suojeluskunta units (an anti-communist auxiliary military organization formed during the civil war of 1918) from where it spread to school curriculum (because school athletics teachers tended to be Suojeluskunta members). Brännboll you mean  Like the ghetto version of Baseball I imagine, without any of the protective gear or expensive bats or uniforms or... well okay you need some cones, a wooden bat, a tennis ball and a field.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Brännboll you mean There's also Rounders, which apparently was a mash-up of what is recognizable today as baseball (it was apparently referred to as base-ball) cricket (the bases had posts as opposed to, well, bases), and softball (underhanded pitching). They weren't allowed to use catcher mitts, though, so an outfielder had to actually get their palm under the incoming ball. That was a thing back in the early 18th century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Alexander Lamis' The Two Party South and Southern Politics in the 1990s cover the transition down through individual states. Fun fact: the latter is the source of Lee Atwater's "friend of the family friend of the family friend of the family" quote. Its also important to note that the "Southern Strategy" primarily wanted to bring the Dixiecrats over to the GOP, but it's affects were felt far outside the south. You might've heard of "Reagan Democrats." Today, the media likes to talk about "Reagan Democrats" as if they are upper class, moderate suburbanites who are wary of both parties. Despite what you might have heard, the overwhelming majority of "Reagan Democrats" were lower-middle class white men, who themselves were largely victims of Reaganomics. But because Reagan had totally and completely adopted rhetoric and policies that hurt minorities and the poor even more, Reagan captured their votes. Wikipedia posted:The work of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is a classic study of Reagan Democrats. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1980. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups Remember Atwater's quote: rhetoric attacking the poor, women, unemployed, etc. was simply the evolution in the Southern Strategy. As you can see from tea party rhetoric today, the Southern Strategy is still in full effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Why did absolutely no large political party rise to fight oil/steel/etc barons in the late 19th and early 20th century?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Korak posted:Why did absolutely no large political party rise to fight oil/steel/etc barons in the late 19th and early 20th century? There were the populists and a lot of the democrats were anti-baron like william jennings bryan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Korak posted:Why did absolutely no large political party rise to fight oil/steel/etc barons in the late 19th and early 20th century? Well theoretically they did, at least the Bull Moose party was more pro-regulation and the Socialist Party obviously was far more so, neither one was successful. Also do to the two-party system, FPTP and the regional politics of that era it is unlikely you would have a "anti-business party" that could win seats. Roosevelt came fairly close but the bull moose party was just mostly a platform to run on. As far as the Democrats/Republicans, the Republicans were very much the establishment party after the Civil War and had already had a lot of ties to big industrialists and wealth in the North. The Democrats were focused around regional identity in the South, which was rooted in bitterness over the Civil War and while there were some more populist Democratic politicians (William Jennings Bryan), there were plenty of Southern Democrats that were very far from economic radicals. The Democrats and Republicans by splinting the country on a regional level were able to avoid a real economic contest, obviously WJB had his own type of populism and there were progressive Republicans like Roosevelt but for the most part it is a strategy of divide and conquer against the American working class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Korak posted:Why did absolutely no large political party rise to fight oil/steel/etc barons in the late 19th and early 20th century? Progressives/Populists existed and were hugely influential. They didn't get everything they wanted (Bi-metallic currency being one of their sillier demands) but they did get things like the 17th amendment passed which allowed for direct elections of senators. Like all 3rd parties in the US they got swallowed up and their views diluted into the mainstream discourse but things like the anti-trust act and other bills were at least born from their ambitions. Another reason they ceased to exist is because the agrarian society that they were based off of became more and more concentrated and mechanized and there rapidly were less and less people who fit in with that lifestyle who were themselves not moneyed interest. On a related note gently caress the Hawley Smoot tariff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Korak posted:Why did absolutely no large political party rise to fight oil/steel/etc barons in the late 19th and early 20th century?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:36
|
|