Talk:Gilded Age

Untitled

I haven't read the Twain/Warner story, and I'm not sure that the anonymously added description has much to do with what it's about. It would be good if someone who actually knows the work would give more of a synopsis. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:31, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

The introduction states that the Gilded Age extended from 1876 to 1900, but the first paragraph after the contents says that it was from 1876-1890. Unfortunately, I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but somebody should probably fix this obvious contradiction; if it's irreconcilable, both can be noted together. siafu 05:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

It would be useful to add something to the effect that the Gilded Age should not be confused with the Belle Epoque (c. 1890-1914) in France. Some comment on the contrast with economic stagnation in much of Europe from c. 1873-79 and slow growth in the 1880s and early 1890s would also be of benefit. It was, above all, the Gilded Age that saw the rise of the U.S. to the status of a world power. JohnC 16:52 UTC, 24 Jul 2005

The War Against the Buffalo

"The American government declared 'war' on the buffalo."

What does this mean??

This intriguing yet baffling sentence demands greater explanation. It seems to hint at something that is an important topic in its own right--probably one that is outside the scope and focus of this article. But there should be a link at the very least. 8/6/05

• I don't have a citation, but there was a systematic attempt, backed by the U.S. gov't and the railroads, to exterminate the Plains Bison to make the livelihood of the Plains Indians impossible. I'd have to make pretty much the same searches to substantiate this as anyone else, so I leave it to others to fill it in. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Article needs substantially more content

The stuff that is there is good... however it is rather disjointed. The article reads like several smaller articles on mostly-unrelated topics (anti-Chinese discrimination, the Pullman strike, Westward expansion and its impact on native Americans and buffalo--that are only related temporally.

The article is also very incomplete, failing to mention key subjects.

Other topics which should be of key concern:

• The rise of monopolies (and the consequences thereof), and of the Sherman Act. (The Sherman Act is only mentioned due to its use to bust unions--later the National Labor Relations Act would declare that the anti-trust laws do not apply to labor).
• Supreme Court decisions and such defending the status quo.
• The rise of populist movements in response
• The Spanish-American War

I'm not a sufficiently versed student of history to modify this article myself--perhaps someone who is is willing to step up to the plate?

I've added the template:attention tag.

--EngineerScotty 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to take this moment and say that the Gilded Age is a series of events such as: production of iron and steel, the increased demand for western resources like lumber, gold, and silver, and the demand for improved transportation. Also, it gets its name from the many great fortunes created during this period and the way of life this wealth supported. Therefore, there is a wide variety of events happening at this time, so it might sound a little disjointed, but it isn't. The Spanish-American War is also not a big deal when it comes to the Gilded Age, sure it happened at that time period, but the Gilded Age is about industrial and entrepenurials in the United States. --User:flajemming 21:08, 14 March 2006 (PCT)

Robber Barons

Definition from dictionary.com: magnates who "who became wealthy by unethical means". Is that not corruption? --Blainster 23:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• No. Corruption usually means suborning through bribery or favors. While the robber barons certainly corrupted legislatures, this was only one manifestation of their lack of ethics. They intimidated and attacked trade unions: Jay Gould said "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." Corruption is not the word for that. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You sound like my brother. No means yes, but--. The robber barons also built monopolies, which although not illegal at first, were also unethical because they destroyed the market pricing mechanism. --Blainster 09:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Robber Baron seems to have been an insult at the time to anyone who was rich, if I'm not mistaken. Not everyone back then was corrupt. --Kafeithekeaton 00:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Robber baron" certainly did not embrace all of the rich. For example, it would never have been applied to old Boston money. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also a grouping of the Democratic/Republican/Populist parties and their presidential canidates would be helpful. I use this website a lot to study for history, but this article seems to lack some good information. Good introduction though, dates may be a little off. -Undergroundpirate strikes again!

massive revert

Bloody hell, someone delete the majority of the article's content on the 31st of that month and [u]noone[/u] bothered to revert the damage. Great work, folks.[/sarcasm].--Kross^Talk 12:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So are you angry at yourself? Who is it that you think has more responsibility than you for this article? - Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I made that post right after reverting, so I was bit miffed. :P--Kross^Talk 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What's to be covered here?

This article should be thought of as a sub-article of History of the United States (1865-1918), right?—in which I'm going to make a section heading, "Gilded Age", with the familiar note that for the main article see Gilded Age. Then this article just need cover the subject of what was a "Gilded Age' about this period 1865-1918. Finally, a condensed version of this article will go at the appropriate section at History of the United States (1865-1918). That's how to bring these two overlapping articles into focus. --Wetman 10:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made a statement there, and I've repeated it here at the head of this article, in hopes that it will be expanded beyond this first repetitious text. Meanwhile, I don't see how the "War against the Buffalo" fits this particular subject. What's so gilded about that? --Wetman 10:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Labor unions

Eugene V. Debs is a person, not a court case. Someone should find the case or correct this wording. --The archbisquick 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. The correct case is In re Debs. --Blainster 08:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Compare these statements

A. The drastic increase in the diversity of the United States due to immigration, drawn by the promise of American prosperity, encountered increased prejudice and racial discrimination from the largely Anglo-Saxon majority.

B. There was a great increase in ethnic and racial diversity from immigrants drawn by the promise of prosperity. Social tensions grew as a result of a decreasing Anglo-Saxon majority, as well as a growing economic gap between rich and poor.

How would "Social tensions grow as a result of a decreasing Anglo-Saxon majority"? It's babble. Is "great" an improvement on "drastic"? Do "ethnic and racial' improve diversity, or are they simply duplicative? This isn't editing, it's fingerpainting. --Wetman 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Exclusion Act

The information related to the Chinese Exclusion Act is unclear when it was lifted. The article states that it was made permanent in 1910, but I assume it was lifted. Perhaps clerification would help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.109.7.70 (talk • contribs) 14 September 2006.

The frontier

As far as I can tell, User:Rjensen removed the following without any edit summary beyond "tweaks". What's the problem with it? Why was this removed?

The contemporary mythos of the American West centers on the independent exploration of adjacent territory by frontiersmen, but in fact the exploration also involved a government-backed plan of expansion. This perception of individualism was the result of (or was expressed in) the political theories of Frederick Jackson Turner, who attributed the strong development of democracy in the United States to the open frontier.

Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I though the passage was garbled. What does the first sentence mean? What does the second sentence mean? Maybe #1 means: The government helped sponsor the exploration of the trans-Mississippi west.' (It did not sponsor exploration of areas east of the Mississippi that Turner focused on); Maybe the second sentence means: Turner argued that indvidualism and democracy emerged out of the frontier experience. Maybe not. Rjensen 05:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I find nothing confusing about it except perhaps the use of the word "adjacent" (and, no, I didn't write it). I'll try to paraphrase (and expand slightly); I actually prefer the original though.

Today's master narrative of the American West centers on exploration by individual frontiersmen. According to this master narrative, those frontiersmen each, either individually or in small groups, independently explored the territory that extended west from the already settled portions of the United States. This master narrative is not entirely true. In fact, the exploration also involved a government-backed plan of expansion. The individualist perception found in today's master narrative was the result of (or was expressed in) the political theories of Frederick Jackson Turner. Turner attributed the strong development of democracy in the United States to the open frontier.

Turner's thesis centered on his assertion that settled U.S. cities and towns were spared some of the class conflicts of European cities because many among the "excess" population in the lower strata had the option of striking out for the frontier. Their equivalents in Europe, according to Turner, largely stayed put and became an insupportable burden and/or turned to radical revolutionary politics; for either or both of these reasons, their presence, according to Turner, was an impediment to the rise of democracy in Europe.

So, that's about three times as long, but I think it is what the author meant to say. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The frontiersmen Turner talked about were long gone by the time of the Gilded age. So it simply does not belong. The exploration likewise was almost over by this time. It's like having a discussion of the Mexican War -- it does not belong in the Gilded Age page. A few more specifics: "Today's master narrative of the American West" is meaningless. The lack of citations is revealing. Rjensen 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Robber Baron as term

"robber baron" was rarely used in this context before about 1887 when Cleveland made the tariff a party issue. Some quotes:

1892: "Meanwhile the Democratic organs and speakers go on denouncing every man who haa made a dollar by reaaon of our protective system as a robber baron."

1892: "When, therefore, the robber baron demands [tariff] Protection so that he can continue to pay the higher wages to his employees, he is deceiving the public"

The historic usage re Middle Ages was well known: 1869: "New Granada is in much the position of some robber baron of the Middle Ages who levied toll for the transit of every- thing that passed his stronghold" source: [1] Rjensen 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Doubtless correct. I didn't know it was Cleveland who made it so, but I'm sure the metaphorical use dates from about that time. - Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Massive deletions: why?

This article has been subjected to massive removal of material over the last 19 days. There seems to have been no discussion on the talk page; there is no explanation in the edit summaries. It is possible that this is legitimate refactoring or removal of duplication of other articles. However, as far as I can see, this was done without even a "see also" that might direct people to those other articles. I haven't been a particularly active editor of this article, so perhaps I am wrong here, but if no one can explain this in the next week or so, I intend to restore the removed material (and would welcome someone more active in the article doing so sooner). - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has been naughty. I reverted back to the full article. Rjensen 19:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It seams a little slanted. Building industrial cities would involve economic growth of some sort, yet a heavy emphasis is placed on the decadence of of the economic agents rather than economic conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.219.233 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilded Age <=> Edwardian Era outside of US?

Admittedly the era outlined here was gilded in the UK and its empire as well, but I remarked on the 1901 cut-off date because AFAIK the Edwardian Era is sometimes referred to as the Gilded Age in non-American, i.e. British/Canadian/etc contexts; also Europe, too, I think. Surely the term "Gilded Age" doesn't just refer to American culture/history?Skookum1 05:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Gilded age in Britain/Canada?? we lack citations for that claim. Rjensen 07:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the dates it is the fact that the commonly accepted term by historians for this time period is almost wholly inaccurate. It is not in the scope of an encyclopedia page, what with original research and all, but a more accurate term would have been "The Inventive Age". --Jayson Virissimo 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Immigrants

In the 1870 census there were 58,000 Chinese men and 4,000 women in the entire country; these numbers grew to 100,000 men and 4,000 women in the 1880 census.

Could someone check that statistic?

-- Mik 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found a specific statistic on Chinese, but I've found one that shows at least the totals may be in the right rance. The first table in this Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals By Race… shows a total of 63,254 "Asians and Pacific Islanders" in 1870 and 114,189 in 1900. In that era, most Asians in the U.S. would have been Chinese. I can't find specific relevant numbers to answer your question after about 15 minutes of online searching, but these numbers should be available. Might not be online, I'm not sure. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I found those numbers of Chinese men and women in Census books, but am on the road and will get the pages next week. Rjensen 21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholarship

Wiki should reflect the serious scholarship of historians and political scientists, and should not be afraid to use technical terms like "party systems." The term is not a novelty was introduced over 80 years ago: see The American Party System: an Introduction to the Study Of Political Parties in the United States by Charles Edward Merriam, Professor of Political Science in the University of Chicago (1923) . Rjensen 09:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

proof Party system terminology was in use in Gilded Age

The idea and terminology of "party system" was certainly in use in the Gilded age. the leading textbooks of the era used it, such as James Bryce American Commonwealth (1888). Bryce wrote: "Part III. contains a sketch of this party system, and of the men who "run" it. " A leading textbook writer was Jesse Macy. Party Organization and Machinery (1904) p. xiv: "While our party system is without Old World models, it is strikingly in harmony with our other forms of political activity..." or p xvi: "Various references to party and faction found in The Federalist illustrate the type of American ideas which prevailed before the American party system appeared"; p. 198 there is a whole chapter titled: "CHAPTER XVI EFFECT OF THE CITY UPON THE PARTY SYSTEM". Macy published Political parties in the United States, 1846-1861 in 1900 and has a chapter on the Origins of the American Party System. So we have proof requested. Rjensen 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Twain

There is no mention of Mark Twain as I saw from skimming the page, and yet he is credited to have coined the term with his 1873 novel entitled, "Gilded Age". Shouldn't this be fixed?Zigzig20s 13:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the intro section. I think it probably should be placed more prominently, though. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Inventive Period

I have heard several historians say that the term "Gilded Age" is a very pessimistic term and is not all that accurate. For one thing real wages were raised continually and the rate at which new life-changing inventions were hitting the market was exceptionally high. Also this age saw the birth of mega-philanthropists. It might be wise to add a sentence dealing with the problems of calling this time the "Gilded Age". --Jayson Virissimo 08:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the meaning behind the term "Gilded Age" is a bit off. It was used negatively and a bit tongue in cheek by Twain. "Gilded Age" is a contrast to "Golden Age" in that, in the Gilded Age, the gold and polish and beauty was only on the surface, but it was a thin coating. In the American Gilded Age the super rich were extravagent and lived in opulence, but the much bigger portion of the population was living in poor conditions with little hope for success. In other words, it was kind of a false Golden Age, or one that only benefited a very, very small minority. --Caranfindil (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

I deleted the Shakespeare refernevce, that is the origin of "gilded lily" not "gilded age".216.2.193.1 (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is incomplete and very uninformative

This article is incomplete and fails to give the reader any real understaning of the what the Guilded Age really was. This portrays the Guilded Age as a period of tremendous properity and ignores the very real problems that people were facing such as: The Rise of Monopolies Social Darwinism (began in this period) Conflict with Labor Unions Racism Populist Movements in the South and the West Lack of labor rights (Child labor, work hour, safety regulations etc.)

Thats just naming a few things. This was a very important period in which many people's lives were very very adversly affected. Wikipedia should mark this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.60.23 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Industrial towns

An IP editor has twice changed language in the second paragraph of the lede. The sentence as it originally existed read as follows:

"The businessmen of the Second Industrial Revolution created industrial towns and cities in the Northeast with new factories, and contributed to the creation of an ethnically diverse industrial working class which produced the wealth owned by rising super-rich industrialists and financiers such as Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan."

The IP replaced "created" with "funded the creation of", the intent based on his/her original edit summary being to make the case that "they didn't literally create them -- their wage slaves did." The POV aspects of this aside, the businessmen, obviously, did not simply provide loans and let the "wage slaves" have at it. The businessmen provided the leadership and planning, as well as the financing, to the development of the industrial towns. If the IP has a valid point to make, perhaps he/she would agree to discuss it here rather than accusing people of attempting to " obfuscate the reality of the situation". The article certainly needs work and, if there is a relevant POV missing from the article, the IP should produce a properly sourced narrative for the body of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oblique view?

Much of this article seems to be written from the perspective of a kind of revised socialist history that says the period was the peak of "self indulgence" for the rich or wealthy. Given that it was a golden (and not gilded) age for architecture, technology, and literature sponsored and patronized by the great fortunes of the day, one wonders if this article can be taken seriously with such a lefty slant. If one added that it was a time before america was troubled by the interference of socialist ideals imported from Europe it would be flagged.

99.232.35.26 (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC) J.F

Economy

The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879. At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_depression

One of the two articles is obviously wrong. Since the NBER stuff is sourced, I'd bet this article here is faulty. There were two strong growth periods, just before Twains book and another from the 90ies onwards. Probably for different economic reasons. (Maybe the Bessemer and the Edison boom...) In between there was a balance sheet recession. Hirsch.im.wald (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

the NBER economists' definition is X consecutive months each being worse than the month before. Then it bottoms out and the "contraction" stage ends in X months. But for the historian the economy is still in in bad shape---depression--and (even if it goes up a little in some months) the depression continues until normality is reached, which may be months or years. A very severe depression began in mid 1893 and lasted (according to the historians) until 1897. Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Still needs fixing

It's been three years since anyone's weighed in on this page, and it still needs some fixing. For starters, "Gilded Age" needs to be contextualized better, and the Shakespeare reference is part of the literature (Cashman 1993). And what about the Chinese epigraph, with its reference to gilded?Fastenufslow (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge to here request

Requesting merge of Perception of Libraries in the Gilded Aged from New York Public Library#History 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that section is not as much about the Gilded Age as it is about libraries, so this is not the right place for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a bad idea. They're two very different articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

I began looking at the immigration section of the gilded age and I feel that it is lacking a lot of crucial information such as why and where most immigrants flocked to. Also I thought that the contrast between new immigration and old immigration is not at all as defined as it should be. I think there is a lot more information that could be added here. Does anybody have any other suggestions as to what else could be added to this section to make it more informative to readers and researchers on this topic? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmadey1 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems unfinished

Seems still more social problems and injustices of the time aren't covered by the article. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Opening

The introductory sections is overly specific and demonstrates the opinion of cited historians as opposed to providing a factual definition and brief outline of what the term "Gilded Age" refers to. I'm adding an overview section and moving much of the content there.

Eternalmonkey (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am integrating the portions of the introduction into the relevant portions of the article. I will also try and cleanup as I work.

Eternalmonkey (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The additions to the introduction still do not fit the purpose of an introduction. I will integrate them into the main sections of the article.

Eternalmonkey (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

the lede summarizes the article & therefore MUST cover South, race, politics, religion, etc. Eternalmonkey seems to want to erase all summaries of the text, but that goes against WP:lede policy. Keep in mind that many readers only read the opening lede and we have to provide them a short, accurate overview. Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Acoording to WP:LEDE the lede MUST "define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The topic is defined. The term was specifically coined by Mark Twain etc. The context is given in that it is the period following reconstruction and the civil war, the south's "devastation" reads as amateurish and blunt. There is no evidence to support any claims made in the following sections and it mainly serves to weaken the whole article. This is not a high school paper term paper. Nothing in politics is so simple as to be explained in a sentence. I'm removing the section until I feel it fits in with the rest of the article. If you want to add it, open a talk section so it will be open for community discussion. Eternalmonkey (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

the main goal of the lede is to "summarize the most important points" and that includes lots of topics that have to be reduced to one or two sentences. The full coverage is in the text below. Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion & voting

the section on religion & voting is taken from History of the United States Republican Party with new material & cites added. Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Time span, Late 1860's to 1896

I scanned the article for reasons why the GA apparently ended abruptly in 1896, but I didn't find any. Could an editor supply this? 24.0.113.90 (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)