So how do you now this would happen?

For both of these? Because these aren't the same thing.

This was actually George W. Bush

Money supply and government debt are really two different issues.

Your conclusion is interesting, as your ascribe the limits to resource limits and the rise of global trade. To the extent that those are at the root of problems, that would be correct, but I'd like to hear more about that. Showing that the post-1974 economy is the new normal is an important point, but you don't really go into much detail, which is too bad.

The comparisons you make between historical eras are okay, but I think I'd like to hear more about what it all means. Sure, there are similarities, but what is the defining characteristic of each era. And especially, who benefits? That's what's different post-1974. Over the past few decades the economy has grown dramatically (as it has in most other eras), but the gains were not evenly distributed. That's a key point to understand.

Not for the whole period of time--this was mostly an issue in the 1970s. From the 1980s onward, inflation has been pretty low.

Cars weren't around during the Gilded Age. There was the beginnings of suburbanization, but it was driven by trains.

Steel! New ways of making it--that was unexciting, but important.

The outcome of the nullification crisis was the lowering of tariffs. That being said, there had been a protective tariff in place since 1816 (I think), which indicates that during the period of initial industrialization, in the 1820s and 1830s, American industry was protected somewhat from foreign competition by the government.

It's an interesting idea, combining Keynesian policies for short-term, but supply-side policies long term. It's not unheard of (e.g., Obama pushed a major stimulus package in 2009, when unemployment was high, then pushed for corporate tax cuts later, once unemployment had fallen), but it is an unusual combination, and I wonder if they work at cross-purposes to a degree. Or rather, running them both at the same time seems odd.

I also wonder, given that unemployment is low, whether we need job creation now. Perhaps we need better paying jobs, or wage increases. After all, the 1980s show you can have economic growth and job creation with wage stagnation.

Overall, I would say this is well-written with historical support for each point (though I'm not totally convinced by the Reagan example--it's not clear that the recovery there was due to supply-side policies, and in any case it didn't address the wage-stagnation issue).

But note that wages still stagnated.

Was this as a result of supply-side policies? There is some dispute about that.

What's the connection between financial crisis (a la 2008 or 1929) and public works spending?

Of course, the unemployment rate is already quite low.

This sounds like Keynesian plus supply-side.

Linking to graphs here, to provide support for this claim, would be good.

This is clear, well-written, and well-argued. I particularly like that you provide clear historical examples to back up all your proposals. Some supporting hyperlinks at places would be nice, as would captions (rather than just hyperlinks) beneath the images.

Can you provide supporting historical evidence for this? The GI Bill is the most likely model.

Mine Workers. Also, he didn't give it, it was awarded in arbitration.

This would be another good place to put in a hyperlink -- you can link to the study itself.

Can you put in a supporting hyperlink here?

It sounds, from your concluding sentence, that you think these policies are unlikely. Why do you think that?

The overview of our economic situation is sound. You have some policy proposals, but I'd like to hear more historical justification for them, and perhaps a little stronger of any argument about why the Golden Age won't come back.

What do you have in mind?

National debt is a result of deficit spending by the federal government. It's not related (at least, not directly) to the trade deficit.

Does the article say what those might be?

This would be a good place to put in a supporting hyperlink.

Keep in mind that there was still high levels of poverty (although dropping rapidly). The key point is that income was rising for all income groups and social classes, even the poor.

My main concern here is that you don't have a lot of historical examples to back up your arguments. You don't provide a historical example on the educational point. You do mention the WPA when discussing work programs, but you're not really proposing a new WPA. You talk about antebellum America, but I'm not sure what specific policy that's supporting.

It's also useful, in a piece like this, to link to supporting pages. It shows that your claims are correct. There a couple of places where you seem to be saying things which aren't factually correct; linking to a webpage would help you show that they are correct.

Be sure to proofread carefully, as there are some usage errors in here. Also, you should aim to have a snappier title.

This would be a good place to link to the article. I'm not sure how the federal government could block Boeing--and in fact, Boeing does have a plant in South Carolina. So linking to an article here would be helpful.

Again, this would be a good place to put in a supporting hyperlink.

Can you be specific?

At least, in middle class citizens' hands.

The concern is not so much about the number of jobs--you're correct, unemployment is very low--but the quality and above all the pay of jobs. Low-skilled manufacturing jobs have paid well; low-skilled service jobs don't pay well. So if I lose my job at a factory and work at a Walmart, my income would drop significantly.

This is a much-debated topic. This would be another good place to link to a variety of perspectives, to support your own argument.

The argument in this section is plausible, but I'd like to hear historical evidence that it would work. The GI Bill is the most likely precedent. Many economic historians point to it as fueling the post-WWII boom.

Can you link here to precise figures on the foreign aid budget?

A quick Google search that I did turned up the number $35 billion (it's also on the page you got your image from)--a lot of money, but a lot less than "trillions." Always be precise!

Even better would be say what could be done with that $35 billion dollars. For example, if you want to strengthen education in the country, that might be more than enough, even if it is not literally "trillions."

FYI, this is conventionally written 'World War II'

We're going to discuss this issue a lot in the last unit of the year!

The problem, however, is that oil is a global market. We get a lot of our oil, for example, from Mexico and Venezuela, but a price increase in oil driven by instability in the Middle East will drive up oil prices--not just for Mexican oil, but for US oil, too. So even if we don't import oil, because the price of oil is set on international markets, we're not insulated from international effects. And that's not even considering our trading partners, such as Europe and Japan, who get much of their oil from the Middle East, and who will be hurt (and thus less able to buy US-made goods) if Mideast oil is disrupted. Thus, it's not that easy to declare the Middle East irrelevant.

This would be a good place to insert a hyperlink to a webpage with additional/supporting information.

It's kind of a sad conclusion you end up on, but you lead up to it clearly. Your arguments are clearest around the issue of international competition. On the issues of income inequality and unions, you could be a little clearer about way they matter--and why we can't do much about them.

Raising the minimum wage might help with this. Strengthening union protections might help as well.

How would this help?

Actually. unionization rates hit an all-time high during and after World War II.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

And yet unemployment is very low--around 4%. So it's not like we're short on jobs.

Well, not everyone. Remember, there was still substantial (though decreasing) poverty--that's why LBJ started the War on Poverty.

I'm sure you can come up with a livelier title than this!

As an overview of the economy, this is pretty good. However, you seem to gloss over some of the downsides of various of the economic eras. Income inequality increased during the antebellum era. Life was very hard for the working class in the Gilded Age. And to say that the Depression "only lasted 10 years" seems to downplay its significance. It's true that the economy has been growing for all that time--but how have the fruits of that growth been distributed? That's the key difference between 1940-1974 and 1974 - 2008: the distribution of benefits.

Beyond the above, I'd like to hear more about why the post-1974 opinion is the outlier here. Why was it different? That's an important issue which isn't addressed as clearly and as explicitly as it deserves.

The pictures are good, as are the captions. It would be good to see some hyperlinks, to related pages. The writing is clear, but make sure it's completely polished!

I'm confused here. You see, later in the paragraph, to suggest that Trump's policies are bad. Wouldn't that be more of a post-1974 economy?

This is an interesting comparison to make. After all, the economy was grown since 1974. The problem has been not lack of economic growth, but the way the benefits of that growth have been distributed. So the question for the Gilded Age is: what was the income distribution then? Did it become more equal or less equal?

Actually, there's a lot of debate over this. See, for example, this article.

I'm sure you can come up with a livelier title than this!

This is a nice post. The writing is lively and sharp, and the use of evidence (as well as the use of images and links) effective. You lay out your argument in a convincing fashion. There are a few ways in which the formatting and presentation could be a bit more polished (for example, you don't need the title in the body of the blog post, as it is already at the top of the page).

The formatting seems odd here--it's formatted like a heading, but it's too long to be a heading.

Great caption!

You make a number of good comparisons between the Gilded Age and the contemporary era here--rising inequality, falling wages, "outsourcing" work (abroad, or to immigrants).

I'd like to hear more analysis. Can you tell me why this is coming around again? Is this "normal" for the US economy, and the post-war era was the exception? Alternatively, tell me what might be done to mitigate these problems.

This would be a good place to put in a hyperlink, linking to a supporting article.

And higher profits!

I don't think this is true. If anything, having a college degree is more important than ever. As manufacturing jobs go away, the low-skilled jobs remaining tend to be badly paid. The remaining high-paying jobs require a college degree. There is still a big economic payoff to college (to say nothing of an intellectual payoff). See for example this report.

It seems to me the real problem is making sure people without college degrees have well-paying jobs.

I like the writing in here a lot: it's vivid and engaging. It's also a nice, albeit pessimistic, overview of economic history. You do a good job of summarizing these various trends. I think the explanation for the post-war boom, and how and why it was different, could be clearer.

Captions on the pictures would be nice (you could also then put hyperlinks to the original sources in the picture caption). You don't have hyperlinks in here, which you really should with blog writing.

Do you mean "to be sure"?

This is a good piece. You discuss the history clearly, and provide an interesting nuanced argument: the government shouldn't fight these trends, but can work to mitigate them. The ideas you discuss have merit, and as I note in my comments, some are under discussion in the broader public.

The pictures work well with the text, but you could provide links to the original source. The writing could be a bit more polished. But overall, this is good work.

This is an interesting point. You don't say much about how to do this, but there are people righting about this. This article, for example, argues that loosening building restrictions in certain areas would increase geographic mobility and thereby growth). This article touches on the same issue.

Interesting article to bring in. But I wonder--can every city do this?

Do we want low paying jobs? Or do you mean low-skills jobs?

Interestingly, even factory worker is become a more skilled position. As factory work becomes more automated, the amount of skill needed to do it rises. Much "unskilled" factory work now requires associate's degrees.

This raises an interesting question. What if certain steps decreased economic growth somewhat, but also contributed to rising median wages? Would those be worth doing?

That's kind of sad.

How about in GDP and per capita income? Those are even better measures, as they are directly about wealth and income.

Do you mean $200 billion?

This is nicely done. You've got a clear point, with ample historical evidence to back it up. I'm least convinced by the last point--you seem to suggest infrastructure programs as way to create jobs, but unemployment is already low, so do we need government-created jobs? Or do we just need jobs to pay better? It seems to me a minimum wage increase might be more in line with current economic conditions.

Overall, though, this is well done.

This idea is growing in popularity within the Democratic Party, interestingly.

This makes a lot of sense. Even for those who think that Glass-Steagall repeal wasn't critical to the crisis would often agree that financial regulation is key to avoiding future crises..

Be sure to be precise in your language. "Fiscal intervention" refers to government spending (e.g., WPA, Obama's stimulus, Great Society, etc.). Regulation refers to imposing rules on businesses (e.g., SEC, Clear Air Act, Dodd-Frank). They are distinct policies. It's true that they are both associated with Democrats, but it's important to see that they are different.

A much debated point. If you're interested, I encourage you to read some articles, such as this, and this.

This is an interesting question. It's a little more complicated. There were Republican Progressives and Democratic Progressives. At the same time, there were anti-Progressive factions in both parties. The parties were not as ideologically unified in those days as they are now.

Are you sure? Can you explain a bit more?

Can you put in a caption explaining what the picture is?

This is a solid overview of protest movements in economic history--from Shays to Sanders. I'd like to hear more analysis. Is there anything they have in common beyond protesting? Are they protesting the same sorts of issues? Is it the same groups? How successful have they been? I kind of want to know: is there precedent for the protests we're seeing these days (Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Sanders).

Be sure to proofread carefully. There are some mechanical and stylistic errors which might have been caught with another round of careful proofreading. The pictures are good, but I'd like to see more hyperlinks to supplemental articles.

He's actually a Senator.

Are you sure?

This is clear and well-written. The images are good, as are the links. There are some minor mechanical errors, but in general the presentation is good.

The writing and ideas are good, too. In the end, your argument seems to come down to "people can't be that nice." But do you think people were somehow nicer in the 1930s, or the 1950s? Has human nature changed over the past few decades? That seems unlikely. So if people are less nice, what has caused that? And can that underlying cause be changed? That's what to think about to push your analysis to the next level.

Utopia? I think Malvina Reynolds saw post-war suburbs as more of a dystopia!

This is a little too strong. The NLRB still exists, and unions remained powerful through the 1950s and into the 1960s. It wasn't until the 1980s that they really lost ground. It is true, however, that Taft-Hartley weakened unions.

Well-written and presented. Your argument is clear--if a bit depressing!

Do you think policies that reversed some of the issues you discuss (such as raising the minimum wage to address the "lack of adjustment to the minimum wage") would help at all?

I think the pictures could be used better to illustrate points you make in the text. You should also include relevant hyperlinks in the text.

The phrasing here is a little unclear. Do you mean that the momentum continued for several decades after the war? Because when I first read this, I thought you meant right after the war was over (and wages were still growing then).

The propaganda pictures are interesting, but can you explain more clearly which point about economic history they're illustrating?

This is a thoughtful, well-written, and interesting piece. There's been a big debate about what drove support for Trump, economics or nativism. You seem to come down on the nativism side, and I incline that way myself. You do a good job of presenting the argument. Nonetheless, it seems likely that economics played some role, especially given the economic issues (wage stagnation, inequality, deindustrialization, etc.) of the past few decades. I would be interested to hear more about what role those economic issues played. You bring them up, but I feel like the argument doesn't fully resolve.

In terms of presentation, I note that you don't include a the required picture. Links are good, however.

I think this is correct, but it does raise interesting question--for example, the relationship between these appeals and the economic difficulties of the past few decades.

This raises the interesting question: why does a faux-populist win elections now?

It's also interesting that there was a lot of nativism in Populism as well. For example, immigration restrictions were part of the 1892 Omaha platform.

I love the format! It's very clever, and it's a fun way to bring out the underlying issue of republicanism in the modern US.

At the end, however, I'm still left a little unclear about the point you're making. You do suggest, at the end, that republicanism is outdated, but I think you could be clearer in your explanation for why that is the case. In the middle you have some discussion of economic trends (such as income stagnation) but it's not clear to me how this fit into your analysis of republicanism.

So while I really like the approach, I think your argument needs to be a little clearer.

I think it was more that he failed to cut them.

So are you praising both LBJ for expanding government, and Reagan for shrinking it?

??

Wait, doesn't this go against rule #3?

On no, the link doesn't work! You should include the caption. Now I don't know what it is!

I like the way you start: looking at the evidence so see what it says about the economic harm (or lack of it) from budget deficits, and then applying that to the Keynesian vs. supply-side debate. It's a good way to apply the lessons of history to current issues. The discussion is a bit unclear at points--for example, you say that under Obama there was high unemployment and high debt. Does that show that debt is bad? Also, as I noted in a comment, a good argument could be made that Reagan, in fact, pursued Keynesian policies (which, in fact, goes along with your argument). Aside from some clarity in the presentation, my main concern is that whole half of the argument seems to premised on the idea that unemployment is high--but it's actually quite low. Given that, do we need a Keynesian stimulus now?

I like that you discuss the question of income stagnation. The immigration policy is an interesting one; as I note, there are very divided opinions on the economic impact of immigration. And for the minimum wage, can you bring in some history.

Also, be sure to proofread carefully! The presentation for something like this should always be as polished as possible.

Can you also connect this policy with some historical precedent? How were people doing the last time the minimum wage was high?

This is actually a much argued point in economics. It's an interesting debate, and worth looking into.

I don't quite follow this.

I would note, however, the the deficits under Reagan were quite high. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, I think they were higher then. So, in a sense, Reagan's budget policies were de facto Keynesian.

Do you know what the unemployment rate is currently?

This is an interesting piece. At its core, it's really reflection on this question: what is fundamental to republicanism? You take the position that it's the ends, and not the means, that define the position.

I like the image, and the links are good. It could have benefited from another round of proofreading, as the writing could be a bit more polished.

It would also be interesting to hear your thoughts about why republicanism needs to change. Why does republicanism now mean big governments, whereas 200 years ago the opposite was true? What has changed?

This is an interesting way to think about the GI Bill--as an extension of the old republican ideal. It is interesting to think about, in that context, who got benefits and who didn't.

So you're pursuing republican ends through non-republican means--is that republican or not?

1832, correct?

You have some good policy proposals here. Much of what you propose--esp. an increased minimum wage and cheaper secondary education--is pretty commonly proposed these days, at least among Democrats (though getting it through Congress is more difficult).

I'd like to see a bit more historical evidence about how these would work. I like that you reference in the history in here, but the historical examples you provide don't always show that they would work. There are other examples you could include. For example, the GI Bill, passed during World War II, which made college education available to veterans, is often cited as something which boosted economic growth by creating a more educated workforce.

Presumably the taxation you discuss in the previous section could pay for this.

This would be a pretty extreme policy. Do you yourself support an income cap? And do you think it could pass?

Medicaid, even more so, as it is specifically for lower-income people.

Can you tell me more about this story?

Do you think that this would also address the issue of income inequality?

What do you mean by this?

I think you can be more precise in your overview of American economic history. There are some phrases that don't quite seem right. For example, there has been a slowdown of productivity recently, but the larger issue has been that productivity has been growing while median income has not. Or, people at the bottom of the income scale have always had to struggle (remember, even during the "prosperous" 1950s and 1960s, there were many people in poverty). So be sure to be precise in your language.

The main point your making--the comparison between Jackon's and Trump's economically-motivated policies towards minorities--is an interesting comparison. In the middle, I feel like you get off topic a bit. You discuss the immigration ban, and then budget policy, and the connection with the original argument seems less clear--for the former, because it's not as explicitly given an economic justification, for the latter because it's not as clearly based in race/ethnicity/nationality. It would also be interesting to hear something about why history seems to be repeating itself in this way. What does that tell us?

Be sure to proofread carefully!

These are interesting observations on the question of regulation and tech. It's certainly a hotly discussed topic these days.

What is less clear to me is which of the assigned topics this relates to. You're definitely comparing the economic present to the economic past, but it's not clear, for example, how the problem of tech regulation relates to ongoing wage stagnation, inequality, etc. That needs to be made clearer.

This is a nice overview of the economic developments since World War II. You show a good understanding of events. You stake out a clear position at the end, too--that the post-war era was unique, and that we can't expect to return to it.

I'd like to hear a stronger defense of that position. What, exactly, made the post-war era different and "unrecoverable"? For example, you mention automation as something that is driving income stagnation, but automation has been around a long time. Even as far back as the antebellum era, skilled workers were being displaced by unskilled workers, and productivity improvements allowed companies to produce more, with fewer workers. So why aren't productivity increases being translated into rising wages now?

So while this is a nice description of the post-war economy, I'd love to hear a stronger argument in here.

This is a nice summary. I think you do a particularly nice job of making it one, cohesive story (as opposed to a series of separate economic eras). It's important to see how the various eras we've studied connect to each other.

But of course, without a lot of success until the 1930s.

And in the south, too, though it was a different kind of agriculture: slave-labor based, and focused on the production of cotton and other industrial commodities.

The corporate aspect of the Gilded Age is key. But what were the economic trends of the antebellum era? And of the 20th century?

This is a pretty good summary. Continue to think about how these different eras related to each other.

And also creating mass, national markets, which further stimulated industrialization

I would say the transportation revolution started around the same time as industrialization--the Erie Canal was built in the 1820s, which was also when industrialization started. So it's hard to say which came first--they kind of reinforced each other.

You mean the Federal Reserve.

Most historians put the end of the Progressive era around 1920. In the 1920s, there were Republican presidents who pursued much more business-friendly policies.

"Indian Removal" usually refers to Jackson's policy towards the Five Civilized Tribes in the South--though it is of course true that the Indians in the North were also "removed" -- i.e., forced off their land.

Pretty good summary! I appreciate that, rather than dividing into separate eras, you tell it as a continuous story. Keep thinking about how everything hangs together.

It's true that Hoover was less activist than FDR--for example, he rejected relief programs for unemployed Americans. However, he wasn't really laissez-faire. He worked with businesses to try to prop up prices and prevent layoffs, and later he backed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. In fact, modern Republicans (like Folsom, whom we read) criticize Hoover for being too activist, and claim that if he had been more laissez-faire, the US economy would have recovered faster (though I'm not convinced that's correct).

This is a pretty good summary. Think about the story that threads through the whole history. At some points you make some connections between eras (as when you point out how the Progressive movement reacted against the business practices of people like Carnegie and Rockefeller) but I encourage you to keep thinking about this as one long, cohesive story.

Carnegie created Carnegie Steel. US Steel was created later, by JP Morgan, when he bought Carnegie Steel and merged it with several other steel companies.

These are pretty good descriptions of these eras. I've made a couple of notes in my annotations, but by and large your describe the eras pretty well.

Can you tell a story that connects the eras more strongly? You present them here a little bit like distinct eras, but of course they were related, each growing out of the previous era. It would be good to capture that in your story.

This isn't really correct. It's true that the South was different, and it wasn't tightly integrated (e.g., through rail links) with the North. But there were still significant economic ties North and South. Above all, the cotton produced in the South fed the northern textile mills. The South and the North depended on each other.

It wasn't so much that industrialization limited competition from the Northeast. Rather, the farmland is better in the Old Northwest (i.e., the Midwest), so once canals and railroads gave farmers in the Old Northwest access to the urban markets on the east coast, they could undercut competition from Northeastern farmers. So they became prosperous not due to reduced competition, but because they won the increased competition made possible by new transportation networks.

Looks like you had to rush through at the end! What's here, though, is correct. But can you think about a story that runs through it, rather than presenting the history as several discrete eras?

Pretty good summary!

This was the theory of "the New Freedom" of course--though as we noted in class, some of his policies (e.g., the creation of the FTC) had a more "New Nationalism"-esque focus on regulation of big business, rather than breaking it up.

I'm not sure of the actual figures on antitrust prosecutions under Wilson vs. under TR--it would be an interesting comparison.

Nice start! Though you had to rush the end a bit. But the basis are here.

The Jacksonian era is part of the antebellum era.

The first couple paragraphs are a nice story. It reads as a story, as you tie everything together. The second half seems a little rushed--you sort of move quickly through Progressivism and the 1920s to the Depression.

The video is funny! You can embed it in the post, I presume.

Nice job here. You do a particularly nice job of weaving it all into a single story, rather than describing it as a series of discrete eras.

This is fine, but make sure you can bring the story forward into the 1930s, and beyond.

Make sure you tell the whole story. For example, how does the Progressive era fit into the story of the American economy?

Not the US economy overall--the southern economy was ruined by the Civil War.

There are some interesting ideas in here. I particularly like that the idea that economic history is entwined with fundamental questions about the meaning of America, and with the American story. That's something to keep thinking about--even in relation to what's going on in the country today.

But there is one gap in the story--between the Progressive era and the New Deal. How does that gap fit into your story?

How would you bridge, in the story, between the Progressive Era and the New Deal?

Are these questions different from the fundamental questions you alluded to in the previous paragraph?

This is an interesting point. Do you think this debate continues after the antebellum era, in other parts of US History?

What exactly do you mean by this?

You seem to have a couple of eras switched here--in the wrong chronological order.

This doesn't seem accurate--the Progressive era was before the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Not just gold--money. Generally, when there was a bank run, people weren't looking for gold, just cash. But banks don't keep enough cash around to provide cash to everyone, at the same time.

You mean at the end of the 1920s?

This is pretty good overall. But keep thinking about what in which this is one story, rather than a series of separate eras. For example, rather than just saying "after the Gilded Age came the progressive era," think about how the Gilded Age influenced the progressive era.

laissez-faire

What I like about this is you're trying to tell a story, rather than just presenting them as separate eras. Keep thinking about trends that run throughout the whole story and that tie everything together.

The phrasing here isn't completely clear to me.

FYI, generally written as World War II

World War I?

He wasn't really a socialist. A socialist wants government-run businesses, and TR opposed that. In fact, he saw his reforms as a way to short-circuit the appeal of radical ideas and thereby prevent socialism--reform capitalism to save it.

It's not clear what you're saying here--are you saying they were passed? That wasn't done until the Progressive era, or later.

This isn't correct--the Southern economy was based on slave labor, not free labor. In fact, I would encourage you to edit the blog post to change this, as it is an egregious error.

This is a pretty good story you're telling here. But don't forget Progressivism!

1933

Or more often, any items at all!

Don't forget the Progressive Era!

What are you thinking of here?

Dawes

He did this, but it was in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Federal Trade Commission Act established the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which regulated businesses.

This is a place where you can really "tell the story"--that is, show how these different eras are connected, and thus part of a larger story. Rather than just saying that the Progressive era reforms came after the Gilded Age, you could note how the Progressive era reforms were intended to address many of the problems that had arisen during the Gilded Age, for example.

It's true that industrialization did start--a little. But don't overstate it. Industry in the South was still limited, and it remained overwhelmingly agricultural.

I like this. You do a nice job of weaving it all into a story, rather than considering them as separate, discrete eras.

As a basic overview, this is good. But what's the overalls story? Rather than just seeing them as four distinct eras, can you tell them as one whole story?

Farming in the South boomed less because of farming technology (they used manual labor, i.e., slaves, in the south), and more because of the demand for cotton created by industrialization in the North (and in Europe).

You should be sure to bring the antebellum economy and the Progressive era into your story. It's important to try to see these, not as isolated era, but part of one longer story.

To be more precise: the Glass-Steagall Act provided more government oversight of banking (for example, it set up the FDIC) and also separated commercial and investment banking (to try to prevent the sort of systemic financial crisis that happened in 1929-1933).

A nice overview. One thing to think about is, what's the thread tying it all together? What makes it more than just a series of events, one after the other?

Most historians generally say that Progressivism, as a movement, ended in 1920, when Wilson left office, because the Republican presidents of the 1920s (Harding and Coolidge) were much more pro-business and laissez-faire. In some ways, the New Deal is a revival of the Progressive idea that government should be used to help the working person.

Can you bring in some examples from US history to illustrate and support this view of US history?

These are interesting statistics, but they don't quite match up. Do you have state for the percentage of white-collar professionals who are black today (as opposed to the percentage of blacks who are white-collar professionals)?

It looks to me like this is "live" in poverty, not have lived. It's probably even higher for "have lived"

A formatting issue: you shouldn't include the title in the text of the blog post--it should be in the title. Also, the first images do not display properly.

1619

Is there a reason to capitalize black and not white?

This is a very solid analysis of the two movements, and I think you've picked up on a key precondition for both of them. You only discuss one precondition. Is this the only precondition, or only the most important one?

The writing is good, though additional hyperlinks would be good.

So the idea is that even bad publicity is good publicity?

Your core idea in this post has a lot of potential: that big government was used to keep blacks down, for at least 100 years after Reconstruction. This has many interesting implications--for example, what does it do to the supposed American tradition of limited government? Does that only imply to white men? And what about after 1964/65 and the Civil & Voting Rights Acts? Does that change the valence of "big government"?

So there is a really nice idea in here. The development includes a lot of historical detail, which in general is well done. However, I'm not quite sure it all leads where you want to. Is the problem that the governments are exercising power, or that they are refusing to exercise power (to protect the rights of blacks). I thought you were going to say the former, but as the piece goes on it seems more like the latter, and that does exactly seem like Big Government.

I would also add that the presentation could be improved in a couple of ways. Some of the metaphors are clever and interesting but don't quite work. Sometimes the word choice or phrasing is unclear or awkward.

In terms of the physical layout/presentation, I would say a couple of things. First, don't put the title in the text itself. Second, no need to include a by-line. We know who the author of the blog is, so the by-line is unnecessary. Third, make sure pictures don't "overflow" past the blog (as the baseball team picture does). Finally, you seem to switch formatting (e.g., line spacing) in the middle of the post, which looks unpolished. Those are all peculiarities of the blog format, but as you may very well be writing in this format in the future, it's good to be familiar with them.

All of those are by way of constructive criticism of the formatting and presentation. But those shouldn't distract from the fact that you have a very interesting idea and approach here, which I commend you for.

This was actually before Jim Crow.

Though it's worth nothing that the executive branch (under Grant) at first suppressed the KKK and protected black rights.

But if this is a limit on federal government power, is it really Big Government that's the problem? Instead it seems to suggest that Limited Government is the problem.

they did?

Can you tell me more about historical connections or parallels or differences between BLM and past movements in black history? I'm looking for that historical connection.

In terms of presentation, you should include some images, to take advantage of opportutities offered by the medium. There are some misspellings (e.g., "isles" instead of "ailes") as well as some usage errors (e.g., at least one fragmentary sentence; "FergusonPolice" in the opening sentence). Another round of careful proofreading would have resulted in a stronger, more polished piece.

Somewhere in here would be a good place for some hyperlinks, to pages that showcase this as one of BLM's demands--newspaper articles or (even better) something from the group itself.

I don't think this is the word you want, as it means (according to the dictionary), "opposing political or social liberalization or reform," which doesn't seem correct.

Are you completely sure this is true, as a factual matter?

In terms of content, you provide an overview of some major events at the roots of BLM, and then look at some of the major Civil Rights groups before drawing some lessons. You end up with a clear point, but I think I'd like to hear more evidence--at least, an example or two of times when BLM didn't adequately condemn violence. Also, you've got an implied framework in your CRM discussion (violence vs. non-violence, integrationist vs. separationist) which might be effective if used more explicitly to then frame the discussion of BLM.

In terms of presentation, the pictures look fine, though sometimes the captions are too long. Including hyperlinks to pages that offer more detail or that back up some claims would be good. It seems like you switch font size in the middle of the post, which is distracting. There are also a number of places throughout where there are some awkward phrasings, usage errors, or other issues which could have been caught with another careful round of proofreading and which overall give the post a less polished look than it deserves.

Are they trying to do this? Can you give examples of times when they have failed to do this?

This sounds like an important and interesting comparison. What can we learn from it?