I was looking at history again. It's a passion of mine that I can indulge today in a way I never imagined. Not that I spent a lot of time imagining the future years ago. Today I can research quite deeply into all sorts of history. I can get as lost as I want which is not necessarily a good thing.
The election of 1900 was an event I wasn't familiar with until yesterday. All the newspapers from that era that I read were giving me a "gut" feeling about the time and I felt I needed to fill out my knowledge of the era. The main debate in 1900 was really two debates and in a way the two debates are a the same as always; international and economic. In 1900 America found itself an empire. A small one compared to the European powers, but Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico not part of our agreed Manifest Destiny. There was still fighting going on in the Philippines that was to go on for 16 more years and involved America having to defeat a home grown insurgency. What was at stake? I'm not sure. How the Philippines fit in with our needs as a country isn't clear at all. It might have been national pride, stoked by the previous 20 years worth of newspaper reports of European colonial activities. By 1900 we had pretty much filled out our continent and our "Destiny" and perhaps we were looking beyond. The sitting Republican president was Wilm Mckinley was challenged by the former Populist Wilm Jennings Bryant. The Democrat position was to leave the Philippines and focus on America.
Besides the empirialism debate the economic debate seemed to be what helped decide the election. Believe it or not what was debated in lengthy articles in the newspaper was the bimetallic monetary policy. Bryant was famous for his "cross of gold" speech in 1897 and was supported by many western farmers in hia attacks on gold and silver monitary policies. In the end the solid Democratic south and the Small number of electorial votes available in the west lead to the defeat of Bryant. Bad harvests in China the year earlier had driven up the commodity prices which kept the midwestern states in the Republican column. The eastern establishment was happy with the post war economic boom and went completely Republican.
What I came away with was how fervantly the people debated these issues. Mark Twain wrote articles against us joining the Europeans in building an empire. The smallest towns had debates about monetary policies.
It all seemed a bit fusty to me at first until I thought how easy it was to substitute Iraq and illegal immigrants for the Philippines and the gold standard. Which left me wondering if it was possible to look at all the 20th century US elections as debates over only two subjects one international and one domestic. I doubt that a such a simplification is possible.
Boring no?
The election of 1900 was an event I wasn't familiar with until yesterday. All the newspapers from that era that I read were giving me a "gut" feeling about the time and I felt I needed to fill out my knowledge of the era. The main debate in 1900 was really two debates and in a way the two debates are a the same as always; international and economic. In 1900 America found itself an empire. A small one compared to the European powers, but Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico not part of our agreed Manifest Destiny. There was still fighting going on in the Philippines that was to go on for 16 more years and involved America having to defeat a home grown insurgency. What was at stake? I'm not sure. How the Philippines fit in with our needs as a country isn't clear at all. It might have been national pride, stoked by the previous 20 years worth of newspaper reports of European colonial activities. By 1900 we had pretty much filled out our continent and our "Destiny" and perhaps we were looking beyond. The sitting Republican president was Wilm Mckinley was challenged by the former Populist Wilm Jennings Bryant. The Democrat position was to leave the Philippines and focus on America.
Besides the empirialism debate the economic debate seemed to be what helped decide the election. Believe it or not what was debated in lengthy articles in the newspaper was the bimetallic monetary policy. Bryant was famous for his "cross of gold" speech in 1897 and was supported by many western farmers in hia attacks on gold and silver monitary policies. In the end the solid Democratic south and the Small number of electorial votes available in the west lead to the defeat of Bryant. Bad harvests in China the year earlier had driven up the commodity prices which kept the midwestern states in the Republican column. The eastern establishment was happy with the post war economic boom and went completely Republican.
What I came away with was how fervantly the people debated these issues. Mark Twain wrote articles against us joining the Europeans in building an empire. The smallest towns had debates about monetary policies.
It all seemed a bit fusty to me at first until I thought how easy it was to substitute Iraq and illegal immigrants for the Philippines and the gold standard. Which left me wondering if it was possible to look at all the 20th century US elections as debates over only two subjects one international and one domestic. I doubt that a such a simplification is possible.
Boring no?
posted by garrison at 12:24 PM
1 Comments:
Boring no?
No, it's quite interesting. I knew of the broad outline of the international issue in 1900, but I didn't know anything about the bimetallic monetary policy.
I find this interesting on two fronts.
First, it amazes me how little history Americans bother to learn. Personally, I only discovered that America had fought a long and bloody counter-insurgency operation against Muslims before only a few years ago. It certainly throws a different light on current history. (E.g., that Muslim insurgency in the Phillipines has more-or-less continued to this day. So should we really be surprised that there is still fighting in Iraq 3+ years in, and in Afghanistan 5 years in?)
Second, domestic economic issues usually don't seem that important in retrospect. An obvious exception would be The New Deal. But truly, what policies was Clinton realy pushing in 1992? How did GHW Bush respond? Does anyone care now, outside of wonk circles?
How quickly the past recedes in America....
Post a Comment
<< Home