They got what they wanted, though: a national market and a protective tariff. They were contented. The progressive push came from the malcontents. They did find some allies among the rich. That's how the two party system works -- people with money could bet on either side -- but if you owned a textile mill or an iron foundry, you were probably contented with post-Civil War conditions and didn't want much more government.
The Hamiltonian view of government is that it should be used as a tool to increase the prosperity of businesses. That government should not be neutral, but activist in favor of business and industry.
Or, Hamilton's view was that the country should foster national prosperity and national unity, not an unworthy goal, by encouraging business. It was people who didn't want the Hamiltonian protective tariff who gave us the income tax and truly big government. For the most part they were Democrats. FDR was a great admirer of Jefferson, and Wilson became one over time. This messes up the neat view of history as big government Hamiltonians versus small government Jeffersonians, but there it is.
Yes, the New York City government was run by Democrats in this era, but the corruption they engendered tended to be of the local variety, not the national variety.
I said as much. The federal government wasn't splashing much money around before FDR. Except during wartime, we weren't taxed that much, so there wasn't that much money for the federal government to spend. When the spigot was turned on in the New Deal, the urban Democratic machines lapped it up, and they -- or the new political machines that replaced the old political machines -- have been doing so ever since.
History books can give a distorted view of history. Out of ten college grads 100 years ago, something like nine probably went to work in business, industry, or the professions and kept out of politics. One of the ten might go into politics or journalism or become a "social justice warrior," and that's the one who makes it into the newspapers and into the history books.
Out of people who didn't go to college, even fewer made it into the history books, so this can give you a skewed view of what elites or the rich as a whole were thinking and doing. The current situation where colleges are basically indoctrination factories and grads all get their opinions from the liberal media didn't apply a century ago.
In other words, plenty of people whose families made money in the 19th and early 20th century weren't looking for more government. Of course, there are always things to criticize about the rich. If they're not callous about other people's suffering, they're bothering them with their "concern," and vice versa, but they aren't a scapegoat or an alibi for everything the country does wrong.
And does that not sound like the present situation today? Corporations are falling all over themselves to please the malcontents because they are allied with them against the normies of the nation. The Bud Light fiasco is an example of this stuff, but virtually all the major national companies are doing the same thing.
Wealthy men in Massachusetts allied themselves with John Brown.
It was people who didn't want the Hamiltonian protective tariff who gave us the income tax and truly big government.
If the tariff system was seen as unfair, a taxation system can be argued at least to be "more fair." DC always wants more money and from any source.
FDR was a great admirer of Jefferson, and Wilson became one over time. This messes up the neat view of history as big government Hamiltonians versus small government Jeffersonians, but there it is.
I've read that FDR became a Democrat because he worked for some prominent official that was a Democrat. If I recall correctly, his Republican family was aghast at the time. His Cousin Teddy was of course a Republican.
I said as much. The federal government wasn't splashing much money around before FDR. Except during wartime, we weren't taxed that much, so there wasn't that much money for the federal government to spend. When the spigot was turned on in the New Deal, the urban Democratic machines lapped it up, and they -- or the new political machines that replaced the old political machines -- have been doing so ever since.
People of that era had a different view about money and federal spending, and it took awhile for people to actually start believing that government spending was no big problem. Of course the bureaucrats loved it, and they came to have a stronger hold on DC with each passing year. Now they pretty much run it and you can't pry them out of it.
History books can give a distorted view of history. Out of ten college grads 100 years ago, something like nine probably went to work in business, industry, or the professions and kept out of politics. One of the ten might go into politics or journalism or become a "social justice warrior," and that's the one who makes it into the newspapers and into the history books.
Yup, though I think the "progressive era" spurred a lot more activism and a desire to use writing as a tool for politics. Upton Sinclair comes to mind.
The current situation where colleges are basically indoctrination factories and grads all get their opinions from the liberal media didn't apply a century ago.
I think it had a lesser effect, but it was still present a century ago.
In other words, plenty of people whose families made money in the 19th and early 20th century weren't looking for more government.
Well this is true, but doesn't encompass the entire scope of what was going on. I recall reading an account of what happened when some famous wealthy man, (might have been JP Morgan, or Rockefeller, I've forgotten) was confronted by the actions of Teddy Roosevelt and he remarked that Teddy was being rude. If he wanted something from him, he should have had his man talk with my man and we would have worked something out. (or words to that effect.)
This account was a window into how these people had become accustomed to doing business with the Government. Also the Union busting showed a lot of connivance between governments and corporations.
If they're not callous about other people's suffering, they're bothering them with their "concern," and vice versa, but they aren't a scapegoat or an alibi for everything the country does wrong.
I see them as a profile of the type of people who tend to stir up unnecessary trouble. Countless writers have noticed the tendency of the rich to meddle in everyone else's affairs, and often just make things worse.