Q • For some observers, industrialists like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt (among others) should be seen as “Captains of Industry” who built massive industrial empires through a combination of business acumen and hard work. For other observers, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt (among others) were nothing more than “Robber Barons” who made their fortunes through the manipulation of markets, unethical business practices, collusion, and luck. Which interpretation of the industrialists do you find more credible and why? • Historians usually describe progressivism as a single, cohesive movement, meaning that progressives shared the same basic philosophy about how to improve American society and employed the same basic methods to achieve their goals. Yet progressives pursued radically different agendas, and often did so for very different reasons and motivations. In reviewing the progressive movement, including both “grassroots” progressivism and “national” progressivism, do you believe that progressivism should be considered a single movement, or should it be seen as multiple movements? • Many historians believe that the United States was largely an isolationist nation, and shunned world politics and affairs until after the Spanish-American War—an interpretation of U.S. foreign policy referred to as the “discontinuity thesis.” Other historians believe that as early as the 1860s (or even before), the United States was committed to an expansionist foreign policy bent on extending U.S. influence abroad—an interpretation known as the “continuity thesis.” In reviewing the history of U.S. foreign relations from 1865 to 1917, which interpretation do you found more credible and why?