Why Did Chartism Fail?

The result was that ?while they thought self-interest the most dangerous and unbrookable quality of man, they necessarily underwrote it in trying to control it.? They generally succeed as seen with competitive capitalist nineteenth century America, with the federal government continuing to provide a stable and acceptable medium with which they could contend.

The onset 20th Century holds two main movements: The Populists and The Progressives. These two parties are similar, but their policies and philosophies hold diversities. The Populists party comprises of farmers and poor whites in the south; they focus on eastern interests i.e. railroads and banks. The Populists also call for government action, to intervene and to create an efficient society which includes a flourishing middle class. The Progressives include educated middle class men and men of universities, they too demanded for reform, but accomplish their goals through legislation and the judicial system. The Progressives focused on reform as well as destroying the Robber Barons. Some Progressives were actually a part of the Populist Party; they weren’t contradictory parties. To simplify the matter The Populist party held picnics in order to present discussions, while the Progressives hold educated and sophisticated men of great esteem who were much more formal.

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolutions. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992.

The Populist and Progressive Movements each had substantial effects on history. Both involving the people’s dissatisfaction with government, the movements impacted amendments, feminism, racial segregation, the economy, and politics. The two movements are similar and dissimilar; the Populist Movement regards economical dissatisfaction and the Progressive Movement is more about social and political change. Without these movements, American history would be altered considerably.

Many critics of history have long argued that Populists were far less successful than Progressives in reaching their objectives, which is supported by the difference in beliefs of the two groups and the results of their distinct reform attempts. Despite not being as effective as the Progressives, the Populists did succeed in getting several of their ideas acknowledged by the government. Unfortunately for the political group, a majority of the Populist demands remained unrecognized or barely enforced. On the other hand, the Progressive movement resulted in several societal and government reforms, as well as a new interest in the wellbeing of the general population. While the Populists and Progressives shared similar objectives, the

During the Market Revolution era of 1815 and 1840, unity evolved an adolescent nation into a thriving nation. After the War of 1812, the federal government provided growth ranging from western expansion, monetary gains, political foundations and religious order. Due to the white man democracy, social disorders were created between various minorities causing cultural effects which brought division into our country. However, ambition to expand developed our nation into what it is today.

To conclude, it can be seen that both colonies, had similar goals as to what needed to be done to make their colonies last, but the methods that were used were very different.From Virginia and Massachusetts it can be determined that two colonies with the same goal can come to two separate political systems based off of their economic

After the Civil War, the movement of women’s suffrage had a new inspiration, as they used African American suffrage as a stepping stone towards women’s suffrage. Organizations, such as the National Association Women’s Suffrage Association and Women’s Christian Temperance, had clear goals to reform the urban areas with women’s suffrage. As this empowering reform took place, women of the late 19th and early 20th centuries started to question their own roles within society. As women faced opposition and had diminished roles within society, the women of the late 19th century sought equality.

Therefore, it is understandable that movement scholars tend to write from a rather activist stance. There is nothing wrong with this per se, however, as historians, we should critically assess in how far this positioning might limit our scholarship. At times, Payne tends to overemphasize the unity and the solidarity among the organizers and the local population and fails to mention the tensions among direct democratic groups like SNCC. Every social movement is made up of people, united under what they perceive as an urgent need to bring about change. This unity tends to suppress theoretical and practical differences for some time and can thus create a tremendous amount of communality and solidarity among its members. However, as history has shown over and over again, as soon as the external threat either diminishes or proves resistant to change, movements tend to disunite. This is what Baker and other activists wanted to prevent by modeling their training around local long-term strategies and individual

The populist party was almost a continuation of the Grange movement, hardworking farmers angry over the fact that they supported the country with their work, while feeling the negative effects of the wealthy lawmakers in power, feeding the same men who ignore the needs of farmers and laborers in America (Doc A). The populists were aiming towards support of farmers as mutual workers and human beings (Doc B). There was not only a look to the future, but the anger over the amount of power the East Coast states, full of politicians and businessmen, due to the partial representatives in the House and the Senate (Docs F and G).

One of the weaknesses was the shortcoming in writing. Explanations with dates and statistics shown in charts were hard to follow. Though not always the case, dates already gone over in detail, were revisited with more detail, at the same distant dates were mentioned frequently, making the timeline tremendously confusing. It could have been much better presented. The charts, when present, were often mushed too close together, with short, unclear explanations, making comprehension difficult.

In the history block of this module, you learnt about three explanations for Chartism’s support – a reaction to economic pressure, national political movement and an inclusive cultural community.

When one looks back on the frenetic 1960s, conservative sentiments aren’t usually the first thing to come to mind. Yet, while the New Left and the radical counterculture were reshaping cultural ideals, it was the New Right who emerged from the 1960s as a viable political force. The New Left can be categorized as a broad, largely youthful, movement with the goal to challenge various social norms and to institute a “participatory democracy”. Moreover, the New Left was “New” in a sense that they differed from the labor-centered liberal elites at the time; insisting on creating larger, more radical changes to society. On the other hand, the New Right was a largely grassroots movement aimed to restore traditionalist values from the “Eastern Establishment.” The New Right was “New” in a sense that it revitalized conservative hope at a time when those hopes looked mighty bleak. When analyzing the wildly different outcomes of the two movements, it becomes apparent that the New Right’s political-oriented manner to achieve their goals proved to be the decisive factor in maintaining long-term stability; something the confrontational New Left did not have the resources to achieve from the outset.

Political movements are organized in order to achieve a common goal. Masses of people come together, and they all learn how

In this source, the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS), or suffragists, appeal for women to be given the vote. From this source, some of the aims of the NUWSS and their methods for gathering support are evident, and something can be inferred of the type of opposition being faced by the suffragists in their fight for suffrage.