I’m part of a class set. Please don’t take me from m13, please don’t write on me. I’m available on the website.
PHIA (PURPOSE, HISTOCIAL CONTEXT, INTENDED AUDIENCE, AUTHOR’S POINT OF VIEW) DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
ON THE DBQ PORTION OF THE AP EXAM, IN ORDER TO EARN FULL CREDIT FOR ANALYZING DOCUMENTS, STUDENTS
MUST INCLUDE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FOR ALL OR ALL BUT ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS:
DOCUMENT
 ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS USING COMPLETE SENTENCES IN YOUR NOTES NOTEBOOK.
PURPOSE
 What is the author trying to achieve?
 What was the outcome associated with this document?
HISTORICAL
 What kinds of outside information can you provide to promote understanding of this
CONTEXT
document?
 What does the document reveal about the history involved here?
INTENDED
 To whom is this document addressed?
AUDIENCE
 Does the audience influence what the author has to say? How?
AUTHOR’S
 What do you know about the author?
POINT OF VIEW
 What kind of bias do you expect he/she to have? What kind of bias is actually present?
YOU MUST ANSWER YOUR CHOICE OF TWO QUESTIONS FROM THE FOUR CATEGORIES FOR EACH OF THE
DOCUMENTS (FOR A TOTAL OF EIGHT) USING COMPLETE SENTENCES IN YOUR COMPOSITION NOTEBOOK.
Wealth Against Commonwealth (1894) Henry Demarest Lloyd
Henry Demarest Lloyd (1847–1903), an influential journalist and reformer, was a vocal critic of monopoly and big business. As Lloyd
bitingly put it: “What we call Monopoly is Business at the end of its journey. The concentration of wealth, the wiping out of the
middle classes, are other names for it.” In Wealth Against Commonwealth, Lloyd provided a devastating critique of big business and
transformed the images of its leaders from captains of industry to robber barons.
Source: From Henry Demarest Lloyd, Wealth Against Commonwealth (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1894), 1–7.
The men and women who do the work of the world have the right to the floor. Everywhere they are rising to “a point of
information.” They want to know how our labor and the gifts of nature are being ordered by those whom our ideals and consent
have made Captains of Industry over us; how it is that we, who profess the religion of the Golden Rule and the political economy of
service for service, come to divide our produce into incalculable power and pleasure for a few, and partial existence for the many
who are the fountains of these powers and pleasures.
People’s (Populist) Party National Platform (1892)
Responding to the worsening economic situation and building on earlier organizational and political experience (the Patrons of
Husbandry or Grange, the farmers’ alliances), agrarians and other protesters, already active on the state level, formed a national
party, framed a national platform, and ran a national ticket in 1892.
Women played roles in the farmers’ alliances and in the Populist Party that were closed to them in the two major parties. Mary
Elizabeth Lease was one such woman, Luna Kellie another. Kellie served as secretary of the Nebraska Alliance and edited and wrote
for an Alliance newspaper there.
Source: People’s Populist Party National Platform (1892)
PREAMBLE
The conditions which surround us best justify our co-operation; we meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of
moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine
of the bench. The people are demoralized; most of the States have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling places to
prevent universal intimidation and bribery. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business
prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists. The urban
workmen are denied the right to organize for self-protection; imported pauperized labor beats down their wages, a hireling standing
army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European
conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of
mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn despise the Republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of
governmental injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires.
Atlanta Exposition Address (1895) Booker T. Washington
During his lifetime, Booker T. Washington (1856–1915) was hailed as an African American hero: he was a former slave who went on
to found the Tuskegee Institute. His accommodationist approach did not win support for long. Washington’s reputation suffered after
his death, especially during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, when he was criticized as an apologist for segregation. More
recently, however, some black leaders have revived his concept of self-help. Both ideas—segregation and group autonomy—appear
in Washington’s Atlanta Exposition Address of 1895.
Source: Booker T. Washington, Up from Slavery: An Autobiography (1900), 218–225.
The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremest folly, and that
progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than of
artificial forcing. No race that has anything to contribute to the markets of the world is long in any degree ostracized. It is important
and right that all privileges of the law be ours, but it is vastly more important that we be prepared for the exercises of these
privileges. The opportunity to earn a dollar in a factory just now is worth infinitely more than the opportunity to spend a dollar in an
opera-house.
Autobiography (1913) Robert M. La Follette
Although he spent some thirty years in public office, Robert M. La Follette (1855–1925) was anything but a professional politician in
the conventional sense. As a Wisconsin congressman, governor, and senator, La Follette left no doubt that he stood on the side of
reform. His emphasis on social reform and expert administration during his governorship (1901–1905) became known nationally as
the Wisconsin Idea. In this excerpt from his autobiography, La Follette recalls his attempts to pass legislation involving direct primary
elections and railroad taxation. Although both measures were defeated in the 1901 legislative session, La Follette ultimately
succeeded in having them passed.
Source: Robert M. La Follette, La Follette’s Autobiography: A Personal Narrative of Political Experiences (Madison, WI: Robert M. La
Follette, 1913), 105–108, 111.
The railroads at that time paid taxes in the form of a license fee upon their gross earnings. The report of the Tax Commission
showed that while real property in Wisconsin paid 1.19 per cent. of its market value in taxes, the railroads paid only .53 per cent. of
their market value (based on the average value of stocks and bonds) or less than one half the rate paid by farmers, manufacturers,
home owners and others. Upon this showing we contended that the railroads were not bearing their fair share of the burdens of the
state…
No sooner had the taxation and direct primary bills [an increase of taxes paid by railroads and other public service
corporations of more than three quarters of a million dollars annually] been introduced than the lobby gathered in Madison in full
force. Lobbyists had been there before, but never in such numbers or with such an organization. I never saw anything like it. The
railroads, threatened with the taxation bills, and the bosses, threatened by the direct primary, evidently regarded it as the death
struggle. Not only were the regular lobbyists in attendance but they made a practice during the entire winter of bringing in
delegations of more or less influential men from all parts of the state, some of whom often remained two or three weeks and
brought every sort of pressure to bear on the members of the legislature.
I’m part of a class set. Please don’t take me from m13, please don’t write on me. I’m available on the website.