Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (1905)
What does this document reveal about the nature of American politics in the Gilded Age?
The document, "Plunkitt of Tammany Hall," reveals a great deal about the nature of American politics in the Gilded Age. It shows how politics was often corrupt and self-serving, with politicians more interested in lining their own pockets than in serving the public good. It also shows how politics was often based on patronage, with politicians rewarding their supporters with jobs and other favors.
The document is particularly revealing about the role of Tammany Hall, the Democratic political machine that dominated New York City politics in the late 19th century. Tammany Hall was a corrupt organization that used its power to enrich its members and to control the city government. Plunkitt, a Tammany Hall leader, was open about the corrupt nature of the organization, and he even bragged about how he used his position to benefit himself.
The document also reveals the importance of ethnicity and race in Gilded Age politics. Plunkitt was a member of the Irish Catholic community, and he used his ethnicity to build a base of support among Irish voters. He also used his position to help other Irish immigrants get jobs and other benefits.
What major aspects of Mr. Plunkitt's approach to politics do you approve of and/or disapprove of? Why?
I approve of some aspects of Plunkitt's approach to politics, but I disapprove of others. I approve of his willingness to help the poor and the working class. He believed that it was the duty of politicians to help those who were less fortunate, and he worked hard to provide them with jobs, housing, and other assistance.
However, I disapprove of Plunkitt's willingness to use corruption to achieve his goals. He was open about the fact that he used his position to enrich himself and to help his friends and family. He also used his position to control the city government, which he used to benefit himself and his friends.
Would you have liked to have been a politician in the Gilded Age? Why or why not?
I would not have liked to have been a politician in the Gilded Age. I believe that politics was too corrupt and self-serving in that era, and I would not have wanted to be a part of it. I would have preferred to work in a different field where I could have helped people without having to compromise my principles.
Are there parallels with this primary document from the early 1900s and the nature of politics and role of politicians in modern society today? In what specific ways?
There are some parallels between the nature of politics and the role of politicians in the Gilded Age and in modern society today. For example, both eras have seen a rise in corruption and self-serving politicians. In both eras, politicians have used their positions to enrich themselves and to help their friends and family.
However, there are also some important differences between the two eras. In the Gilded Age, politics was more openly corrupt than it is today. Politicians were more likely to admit to their corruption, and they were less likely to face consequences for their actions. Today, politics is still corrupt, but it is more hidden. Politicians are less likely to admit to their corruption, and they are more likely to face consequences for their actions.
Another difference between the two eras is the role of the media. In the Gilded Age, the media was less powerful than it is today. Newspapers were the main source of news, and they were often controlled by wealthy individuals or corporations. Today, the media is more diverse and independent, and it plays a more important role in holding politicians accountable.
Overall, there are some similarities between the nature of politics and the role of politicians in the Gilded Age and in modern society today. However, there are also some important differences between the two eras.