payment page
What key factors led to the boom of urban populations during the Gilded Age?
Rapid immigration along with the increased pace of Americans moving from farms to the cities after the Civil War caused the massive urban boom during the Gilded Age.
What caused the floods of immigrants and emigrants from the 1880s to 1920s?
The influx of immigrants from Europe to America in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era resulted largely from civil wars and political and religious persecution in many southern and eastern European nations. However, limited economic prospects and a belief across Europe that the United States offered far greater opportunities motivated people from all over Europe to flee their homelands in search of better lives in America. During this period, approximately one million immigrants from Italy, Greece, Russia, Poland, and other countries arrived in eastern U.S. cities every year.
At the same time, millions of country-dwelling Americans were emigrating to the cities to escape poverty in search of jobs and opportunity.
How did political machines become so powerful in the US?
The urban explosion contributed significantly to the rise of powerful political machines like William “Boss” Tweed in New York City that became synonymous with the Gilded Age. Political bosses in both the Democratic and Republican parties accumulated power and wealth by recruiting preying on the needs of insecure immigrants living in the cities’ slums. In exchange for their votes, political machines offered social services, new public projects, and sometimes even physical protection. These political machines grew incredibly powerful well into the 20th century and came to dominate local politics and even influence national politics. Nearly every U.S. president between Grant and Truman drew significant support from local and state party machines.
How did the influx of workers benefit business interests?
The US economy grew significantly as a result of the from the surge of immigrants and farmhands to the cities. Factory owners especially benefited from immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, who, eager to make a new start in America, often worked inhumane hours for meager wages and rarely threatened to unionize. While availability of cheap labor contributed to the economic boom during the Gilded Age and throughout the early 20th century, this growth could also come at a high price to the workers.
The most famous instance of workers paying a heavy price for the success of the business owners was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire on in New York March 25, 1911, resulting in the deaths of 146 workers—mostly immigrant girls and women. These deaths occurred because the factory had neither sprinklers nor fire escapes, and as a result of the factory doors and exits being locked to prevent them from taking breaks.
How did the rising middle class contribute to societal reforms?
Urban growth contributed to the advancement of a distinctive American middle class in the decades after the Civil War. Not rich but not poor either, a growing number of Americans could afford to live comfortably and enjoy the modern conveniences of Gilded Age life. The increasing number of middle-class women spurred a reform movement of the late 19th century. Many of these women strove to eliminate poverty and right other social wrongs, such as drinking, prostitution, and gambling. Jane Addams, Lillian Wald, and other women founded settlement houses in urban slums to help immigrants improve their lives in the New World. This early reform movement spearheaded the broader Progressive movement that dominated American politics after the turn of the century.
In what ways did the railroads impact American society in the post–Civil War era?
Railroads completely transformed the United States socially, politically, and economically during the Gilded Age. Literally the engine of the new industrialized economy, they facilitated the speedy transportation of raw materials and finished goods from coast to coast. The “iron horse” also made massive westward migration plausible for millions—but at a heavy cost to the existing Native American culture in the West. As the railroads grew in power, they exerted increasing influence on local and state governments, eventually prompting Congress and reform-minded presidents to pass laws to regulate the new industry.
What part did railroads play in the post-Civil War westward migration?
Railroads contributed more than any other single factor to the transformation and development of the West. Although more than a million Americans had moved westward in the days of manifest destiny before the Civil War, trains brought millions more throughout the latter half of the 19th century to settle the heartland and the frontier. Railways made it physically and economically feasible for Americans to settle Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and Oklahoma in large numbers. At the same time, the decimated population of native grassland bison testified to the negative consequences of this drastic transformation of the Midwest.
How did technology and finance combine to spur the growth in railroads?
Cornelius Vanderbilt and other rail tycoons capitalized on the conversion of iron tracks to steel, which allowed them to lay more track for only a fraction of the earlier cost. As a result, by 1900, the United States boasted almost a quarter of a million miles of railroad track. In turn, steel magnates such as Andrew Carnegie benefited from the increased demand for steel and responded by producing more. As consolidation and innovation streamlined costs, it became cheaper and faster to ship raw materials, manufactured goods, foodstuffs, and oil over rail than by steamship.
How did the success of the railroads lead to in corrupt business practices?
As railroad companies grew in power, they exerted increased influence on local politics and economics. Unscrupulous “robber baron” industrialists extorted the public by charging outrageous rates, giving uncompetitive rebates to preferred customers, accepting bribes and kickbacks, and discriminating against small shippers. Public discontent with the railways emerged in small farming communities throughout the Midwest—a discontent that ultimately helped form the backbone of the populist movement.
How did the public and government respond to the unfair railroad practices?
Public reaction against the railroad barons’ uncompetitive business practices formed the backbone of the reform-minded Populist and Progressive movements. Populist and socialists wanted to curb corruption by nationalizing all railroad lines. While this never occurred, the government was able to gradually institute several controls over the railroads. For instance, in 1887, Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which supervised railroad companies that operated in more than one state by outlawing unfair rebates and ordering companies to publish fares up front. The Elkins Act of 1903 and the Hepburn Act of 1906 strengthened the ICC by restraining railroad companies further. In addition, the Supreme Court ordered the dissolution of James Hill’s and J. P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Railway in 1904.
In what ways was the Election of 1896 a watershed in US politics?
William McKinley’s victory over William Jennings Bryan demonstrated the shift from rural voters and agrarian concerns holding the upper hand to the dominance of city dwellers and business and industrial interests in elections. The 1896 election also ended the Populist Party, as most of its issue and voters were subsumed into the Democratic Party. Another distinction of the election is that it was also the first “modern” election in terms of the amounts of money being raised and spent in support of candidates.
How did the 1896 election represent of the shift from rural to urban dominance?
The results of the election confirmed that by 1896 farmers and rural interests no longer dominated the American electorate. Even though the United States had been a predominantly agrarian country since the American Revolution, the immigration and industrialization surges of the Gilded Age shifted the population balance toward the cities. In spite of Bryan’s strong appeal in favor of workers and against their oppression by big business interests, his base was in rural areas in the West and the South. Also, his forceful support for inflationary silver—while popular with farmers—worried urban residents, who relied on steady wages. Bryan’s subsequent loss of support among urban voters ultimately made the election unwinnable for the Democrats. Even though he was a Republican and was firmly aligned with big business interests, McKinley had appealed directly to American urban dwellers, promising economic stability and a “full dinner pail” for every American. His “sound money” policies naturally appealed to business leaders, but they had also appealed to workers.
Why did Bryan’s embrace of “free silver” end up dooming the Populist Party?
William Jennings Bryan’s decision to incorporate much of the Populist Party platform into the Democratic Party platform of 1896 led to the demise of the Populist Party. Particularly important was Bryan’s call for inflationary free silver to help impoverished farmers in the South and Midwest pay off their debts. Populist leaders chose to unite with Bryan and the Democrats rather than run a third party candidate of their own. Although backing Bryan likely represented the best option for success that particular election, the Populist Party’s support of him deprived them of their own platform and ultimately pushed many farmers permanently in line with the Democratic Party. The Populist Party never recovered and eventually dissolved completely.
How did Mark Hanna make presidential elections much more “modern” than before?
The election of 1896 demonstrated the growing importance of money in American politics. McKinley’s wily campaign manager, Mark Hanna, successfully convinced business tycoons to donate to the Republican. With more than $15 million, Hanna and McKinley had far more money to spend on the campaign than anyone before them. McKinley won the election in no small part because of the Republicans’ ability to spend more money, prompting many Democrats to accuse the Republicans of “buying” the nation’s highest office.
