Populist Movement Analysis

In all the history of America one thing has been made clear, historians can’t agree on much. It is valid seeing as none of them can travel back in time to actually experience the important events and even distinguish what has value and what doesn’t. Therefore all historians must make a leap and interpret the facts as best they can. The populist movement does not escape this paradox. Two views are widely accepted yet vastly different, the views of Richard Hofstadter and Lawrence Goodwyn. They disagree on whether populists were “isolated and paranoid bigots” or “sophisticated, empathetic egalitarians”; whether their leaders were “opportunists who victimized them” or “visionary economic theorists who liberated them”; whether their beliefs were rooted in the free silver campaign of the 1890s or the cooperative movement of the 1880s; and finally whether their ideal society was in the “agrarian past” or “the promise of a cooperative future”. They could not agree on anything, over all Richard Hofstadter seems to have a better idea of the truth of populism. The first topic that was debated was whether the populists we “isolated and paranoid bigots” or were the “sophisticated, empathetic egalitarians”. Racism happened t is not a part of history to be overlooked, although the populist movement was trying for betterment of rights they weren’t fighting for

Hofstadter believed their essence was in the free silver campaign. The free silver campaign wanted to devalue the dollar. Seeing as most farmers were in debt, this would be very good for them making them owe less. It would also supposedly increase the price of their crops. People don’t want to be in debt. People want their goods to sell the most that they can. This is what is important to people this is what a movement is going to be centered around. A movement with irrelevant topics is not going to get off the