2) Compare and contrast the Populist and Progressive Movements.

How
did the Populists see the nation and American society. How did they hope
to change it? What was their vision for the future? How did the
Progressives see the nation and American society, how did they hope to
change it, and what was their vision for the future? Which group had a
more radical vision for the future? Which group was more successful in
achieving its agenda? Be sure to cover the events that sparked each
movement, the motivations of its participants, its leaders, their proposed
reforms, and each movement's successes and failures.
The Populists and Progressives were as similar as they were different. Both
movements had some of the same basic interests at heartimproving the
conditions of the working class, ending child labor, criticizing industrial
society as a whole. They started on more localized levels and worked their
way into alliances and organizations that stretched nationwide under one
banner, be it Populist or Progressive. But the movements came from two
different groups and tried to implement changes in two different times, and
the kind of backing they had from the average American, as well as the sort
of political influences they had, were the most marked differences between
the Populists and Progressives.
The Populists were born from the Farmers Alliance, an organized alliance
of farmers that had evolved from a growing number of farmers protesting
and organizing as a result of falling farm prices. The Populists called for
action, revolution, land reform; they were convinced that the banking
systems of the time were advantageous only to the wealth and wanted a
cheaper form of currency. The Peoples Party demanded economic
democracy and came up with a variety of reforms that they thought would
benefit farmerssuch as a subtreasury for Southern farmers, free silver
and greenbacks, and reclaiming lands granted to railroads. The Populists
desired an end to contract labor and wanted to increase the nations money
supply, and also were among those who spoke out against the way the
homeless wanderers of the 1893. Like the Progressives, they also

promoted changes that would aid the working class, such as an eight hour
workday, but unlike the Progressives, they lacked popular support and a
singular, strong leader in politicsthere was no Roosevelt for the Populists,
which is probably one of the reasons the movement died an early death as
a result of the election of 1896.
The Progressives, unlike the Populists, were not farmers, nor did they want
to revolutionize America; they wanted to reform it without changing its basic
institutions, and the Progressives sought to unite across classes, though it
especially allied itself with the working class. The Progressives, however,
like the Populists, began on the grassroots level and worked its way up
through local and national politics. Like the Populists, the Progressives
went after the problems of urban industrialism and called for better
conditions amongst the working class, though they, formed mostly of
working class citizens, expanded more on these calls for reform. Here,
however, is where Progressivism really begins to splinter from its similarities
with the Peoples Party. The Progressives were more active in helping and
allying themselves with other classes with programs like settlement houses,
and Progressivism employed both religious and scientific ideas, professing
a new Christian social gospel and emphasizing experimentation and reform
Darwinism. They were active and had a desire for the government to be
more active, too, specifically in business. Also, unlike the Populists, the
Progressives wanted to put the experts in charge, and they managed to
gain more popularity as a whole, likely, in large part, to Progressive
Theodore Roosevelt, who implemented a variety of Progressive ideas
during his time as President.
Both the Populists and Progressives saw flaws in how America was run,
both economically and in the government. They wanted to help the farmers
and the working class, make money more available and abolish child labor.
They faced challenges on their road to reformmultiple strikes, like the
Cripple Creek Miners Strike, fueled the fires of the Populists, and incidents
like the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire served as an example of the need to
reform for the Progressives. Both were met with successes and failures;

Progressivism stalled during the Taft administration and was lukewarm

during Wilsons, and by the 1920s much of its successes had been turned
around again, while the Peoples Party was short-lived but had an impact
on the domestic political agendas for the next decade, enlarging the role of
the federal government in the economy. The Populists were, by far, the
more radical of the twoexemplified by their call for revolution, not reform
while the Progressives, with their popular president at the helm, were
more immediately successful. The Populists were often splintered
Western Populists, Midwestern, Southernwhile the Progressives
purposely strode the unite across classes. Both parties had their similar
desires of reform and improvement, while both were decidedly different in
their demographics and results. In the end, however, both Populists and
Progressives, from the lifestyle of the average farmer to the amount of
power the president wielded, had a profound impact on shaping the
government, economy, and lifestyle of America.