At the turn of the century, the United States was a world power, experiencing much prestige and prosperity for big businesses and the upper class. However, things were not as perfect as they appeared. Much of America was in poverty, facing horrible working conditions and being forced to put children to work. Corruption thrived without persecution. Big businesses used monopolies and amoral practices to achieve their goals. Eventually, the people and the government began working to reform America, creating the Progressive Era. The government played a substantially large role in reform in the early twentieth century. It did this through state-level political reforms, including limits on campaign expenditures and lobbying; state-level economic reforms, such as regulation of railroad and food companies and graduated income tax; state-level social reforms, like workers’ rights laws and attempts to ban child labor; federal political reforms, such as the 17th amendment, establishing direct election of senators; federal economic reforms, including strengthening of the Interstate Commerce Commission though the Elkins, Hepburn, and Mann-Elkins Acts and Wilson’s attacks on the “triple wall of privilege”; and federal social reforms, such as acts and supreme court rulings for laborers’ rights and the prevention of child labor.
Many state-level reforms took place in Wisconsin, led by Robert La Follette. Laws were passed in Wisconsin limiting campaign expenditures. These laws were the predecessors of campaign finance reforms. La Follette also established a direct primary system for the nomination of Presidential candidates, taking the power away from the machine corruption of the cities. At the same time, La Follette also led Wisconsin in passing laws that limited lobbying activities and created agencies and commissions to investigate political problems. La Follette’s reforms eventually became known as the “Wisconsin Idea” and Wisconsin became the model progressive state, as Wisconsin was the only state taking part in this much political reform.
Although most economic reform at the time took place through the federal government, there was also state-level reform. Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey, created reforms to address corruption in business practices. Hiram Johnson, Governor of California, worked for railroad regulations. Other states adopted similar reforms. Many states created restrictions for the food industry as well as insurance and railroad companies. Graduated income taxes for businesses were also adopted in multiple states, where they replaced the fixed income tax. The graduated income tax allowed for more prosperous businesses to pay more in taxes, imposing less on businesses that could not afford it and allowing smaller businesses to exist more easily.
Social reforms were very common at the state level. Theodore Roosevelt, as Governor or New York, created reforms to address the problems of living conditions in urban areas. Many other states adopted reforms to improve the lives of fellow human beings. Most of these reforms dealt with protecting the rights of workers. Some provided pensions for families of men who were killed while working. Workers’ compensation was established to protect victims of work-related accidents. Women were given special treatment through maximum hour laws because people felt that they were weaker and could therefore withstand less work. Lastly, quite a few states made attempts to ban child labor, although this reform movement was not successful at first.
The most important example of federal political reform was the seventeenth amendment. Before this amendment, Congress had had a very close relationship with big business. As a result, the Senate was comprised almost entirely of America’s richest people. Some went so far as to nickname it the “Billionaire’s Club.” These rich senators usually worked to help the corporations (or their “masters”), rather then the people they were supposed to represent. After much pressure from the people and the States, the seventeenth amendment to the Constitution was passed, establishing direct election of Senators. This was a huge step away from political corruption, as the Senators were now working to please the people rather than the wealthy companies.
A lot of the federal government’s focus in the early twentieth century was on economic reform. Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson all worked to reform the economy, but had different methods of doing so. Roosevelt and Taft both preferred to regulate monopolies, while Wilson regulated competition. Together, Roosevelt and Taft passed three acts that strengthened the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The first was the Elkins Act, which outlawed second rebates for railroad companies. The second was the Hepburn Act, which set up more regulations for railroad companies, including maximum rates. Last was the Mann-Elkins Act, which gave the Interstate Commerce Commission the authority to regulate the communication industry and gave additional power for regulating railroads. In addition, Roosevelt created the Bureau of Corporations, which investigated trust violations. When Woodrow Wilson gained power, he worked against what he called the “triple wall of privilege,” which included tariffs, trusts, and banking. He attacked the first with the Underwood Tariff, the first major reduction in over 50 years. This helped the consumer by lowering prices and, he believed, helped businesses by forcing them to become more efficient. He tacked the second with the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. This was a modification of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It gave unions exemptions when they were “pursuing legitimate aims.” This allowed government to limit labor’s power. Finally, he addressed the third part of the wall of privilege with the Federal Reserve Act. It divided the country into 12 Federal Reserve Banks controlled by the government. This allowed the government to regulate banking practices and the amount of money in the economy, both of which had previously created currency problems.
All three branches of the federal government played roles in social reform. The legislative and executive branches both gave their support for the Adamson Eight-Hour Act and the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act. The Adamson Eight-Hour Act established an Eight-Hour workday for railroad employees and required extra payment for overtime work. The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act outlawed interstate trade of items produced by children under fourteen. Unfortunately, this was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The judicial branch did, however, support a different social reform. In the case of Muller v. Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of limited work hours for female laundry employees. This was because women were considered to be weaker and in need of more protection than men. Although thus was sexist, it was still a positive step for workers’ rights, as were the Acts produced by the government’s other two branches.
The government played a very significant role in reform in the early twentieth century. States such as Wisconsin had political reforms to limit lobbying and campaign expenditures. States reformed America’s economy through regulation of corporations and the establishment of the graduated income tax. Finally, states created social reforms by creating laws to protect workers’ rights. The federal government reformed America politically by allowing for senators to be elected directly, taking power away from big businesses and giving it to the people. The federal government created economic reforms through Roosevelt and Taft’s acts strengthening the Interstate Commerce Commission and through Woodrow Wilson’s work against the problems of tariffs, trusts, and banks. Lastly, the federal government reformed socially by using all three branches to protect workers’ rights. As a whole, all different levels of government managed to reform America in multiple ways.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Essay #8: Spanish-American War
On April 11, 1898, McKinley asked Congress to declare war with Spain. They responded with the Teller Amendment, which essentially did just that. Many American soldiers were killed in the war by diseases such as malaria, which were common in the tropical climate. However, the United States managed to win the war, as the treaty signed in Paris in December of that year clearly showed. Cuba gained its independence, as America had wanted, and Spain relinquished many of its territories. The United States was justified in going to war with Spain for moral reasons, because of Spain’s brutal treatment of the Cubans; for economic reasons, because of its desire for Cuba and its resources and because it needed to protect its business investments there; for diplomatic reasons, because of the DeLome letter and the sinking of the Maine; and for political reasons, because of the American population’s clear demand for war as a result of the Yellow Press.
Before the war, Cuba was a Spanish territory. One main reason that the United States had for declaring war was that they wanted to remove Cuba from Spanish rule. The Spanish government treated the Cubans harshly and with a disregard to human rights. The Cuban people revolted against the Spanish government multiple times without success. The Spanish general “Butcher Weyler” went so far as to put Cuban civilians into reconcentration camps. These camps were surrounded by barbed wire and were used to keep the civilians from aiding the “insurrectos” in their revolt. These camps were very unsanitary, so most of the civilians in them died very quickly. The American government had justification in attempting to free Cuba from Spanish control because, no matter what plans the US had for Cuba, they would still be putting an end to these atrocities.
During the years before the war, many Americans had begun to desire that their country become a world power. These people were called imperialists. They sought to gain resources by gaining control of new territories. They took control of Samoa and Hawaii, but were not yet considered a global power. However, they had held interest in Cuba for a very long time. Before the Civil War, the South had wanted Cuba as a slave territory. Now, it became the object of America’s desires yet again, this time for its resources and location. As Lodge described it, Cuba was “right athwart the line” that led to the all-important Panama Canal. Lodge said that whoever controlled Cuba “controls the Gulf.” This gave America great reason to want some power over Cuba, which they managed to achieve after the war, even while Cuba also technically had its independence. Also, America had economic reason to support Cuba’s interests because US business had about a $50 million stake in Cuba and twice that much of an annual trade stake. There would be negative economic consequences for America if there was an upheaval caused by Spain, so America had good reason to want Cuba and Spain separated.
Relations between Spain and America were not incredibly strong to begin with and two events caused them to deteriorate completely. The first was the DeLome letter. The Spanish minister, Depuy Delome, had written a letter that included insults directed at President McKinley. The letter was stolen in Washington and published in a newspaper. The people of America were outraged upon reading it and, although DeLome resigned, anti-Spanish sentiment stayed strong. A week later, the second incident occurred when the American ship the Maine sent to Havana Harbor was blown up. The obvious culprit was believed to be Spain. It could have been an accident, but the relations between America and Spain were still destroyed and America still saw Spain as a threat, giving them reason for war.
A major factor in the decision to go to war with Spain was the sentiment of the American people, who not only supported it, but demanded it. In the time before the war, the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, also known as the “Yellow Press,” greatly exaggerated the Spanish faults, believing that a war would increase their newspaper sales. They sought to out-do each other in their sensationalized reporting on the atrocities in Cuba, making up stories when no real ones were horrific enough. After the sinking of the Maine, they helped to greatly increase the anti-Spain sentiment to the point where the American people were convinced that waging war was the only answer. When McKinley did not do so immediately, he was called spineless and some people began hanging him in effigy. Eventually, the government chose to follow the political will of the people and McKinley asked Congress to declare war.
The American government was justified in going to war with Spain in 1898. There was moral justification in that America would be separating Cuba from the Spanish government, which treated the Cubans brutally. There was economic reason because America wanted to gain resources from Cuba and because it was protecting the business investments there. There was diplomatic reason because of the deteriorating American-Spanish relations as a result of the DeLome letter and the sinking of the Maine. Finally, there was political justification because the anti-Spain sentiment caused the American people to demand war. In all, these reasons provided more than enough justification for the Spanish-American War.
Before the war, Cuba was a Spanish territory. One main reason that the United States had for declaring war was that they wanted to remove Cuba from Spanish rule. The Spanish government treated the Cubans harshly and with a disregard to human rights. The Cuban people revolted against the Spanish government multiple times without success. The Spanish general “Butcher Weyler” went so far as to put Cuban civilians into reconcentration camps. These camps were surrounded by barbed wire and were used to keep the civilians from aiding the “insurrectos” in their revolt. These camps were very unsanitary, so most of the civilians in them died very quickly. The American government had justification in attempting to free Cuba from Spanish control because, no matter what plans the US had for Cuba, they would still be putting an end to these atrocities.
During the years before the war, many Americans had begun to desire that their country become a world power. These people were called imperialists. They sought to gain resources by gaining control of new territories. They took control of Samoa and Hawaii, but were not yet considered a global power. However, they had held interest in Cuba for a very long time. Before the Civil War, the South had wanted Cuba as a slave territory. Now, it became the object of America’s desires yet again, this time for its resources and location. As Lodge described it, Cuba was “right athwart the line” that led to the all-important Panama Canal. Lodge said that whoever controlled Cuba “controls the Gulf.” This gave America great reason to want some power over Cuba, which they managed to achieve after the war, even while Cuba also technically had its independence. Also, America had economic reason to support Cuba’s interests because US business had about a $50 million stake in Cuba and twice that much of an annual trade stake. There would be negative economic consequences for America if there was an upheaval caused by Spain, so America had good reason to want Cuba and Spain separated.
Relations between Spain and America were not incredibly strong to begin with and two events caused them to deteriorate completely. The first was the DeLome letter. The Spanish minister, Depuy Delome, had written a letter that included insults directed at President McKinley. The letter was stolen in Washington and published in a newspaper. The people of America were outraged upon reading it and, although DeLome resigned, anti-Spanish sentiment stayed strong. A week later, the second incident occurred when the American ship the Maine sent to Havana Harbor was blown up. The obvious culprit was believed to be Spain. It could have been an accident, but the relations between America and Spain were still destroyed and America still saw Spain as a threat, giving them reason for war.
A major factor in the decision to go to war with Spain was the sentiment of the American people, who not only supported it, but demanded it. In the time before the war, the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, also known as the “Yellow Press,” greatly exaggerated the Spanish faults, believing that a war would increase their newspaper sales. They sought to out-do each other in their sensationalized reporting on the atrocities in Cuba, making up stories when no real ones were horrific enough. After the sinking of the Maine, they helped to greatly increase the anti-Spain sentiment to the point where the American people were convinced that waging war was the only answer. When McKinley did not do so immediately, he was called spineless and some people began hanging him in effigy. Eventually, the government chose to follow the political will of the people and McKinley asked Congress to declare war.
The American government was justified in going to war with Spain in 1898. There was moral justification in that America would be separating Cuba from the Spanish government, which treated the Cubans brutally. There was economic reason because America wanted to gain resources from Cuba and because it was protecting the business investments there. There was diplomatic reason because of the deteriorating American-Spanish relations as a result of the DeLome letter and the sinking of the Maine. Finally, there was political justification because the anti-Spain sentiment caused the American people to demand war. In all, these reasons provided more than enough justification for the Spanish-American War.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Essay #7: Union Movement
Between the end of the Civil War and the turn of the century, the United States’ industry grew dramatically in what some called the “Second American Revolution.” The industrial output that had been ranked fourth behind Britain, France, and Germany only a few decades earlier had now become larger than these three combined. Help from the government and new technologies gave the capitalist class its chance to rise. The concept of Social Darwinism promoted laissez-faire capitalism and its idea that government intervention was not needed in industry and that the economically “strong” (the wealthy business owners) deserved to have high status and not be limited. This led to low wages and poor conditions for laborers, prompting them to create unions in an attempt to right the situation. The union movement was successful on some fronts and unsuccessful on others. The unions were successful in uniting workers and shortening work days, but unsuccessful in achieving any of their economic goals, such as higher wages.
In the late nineteenth century, there were four major national trade unions. The first was the National Labor Union (NLU). This union had the goal of uniting all workers, regardless of skill level, area of work race, or gender. It included members of all backgrounds, allowing for diversity and unity of all different workers. The second union was the Knights of Labor. This union was much more radical than the NLU but still held the same goals of equality, leading to the same diverse and unified result. The third union was the American Federation of Labor (AFL). This union was much less radical than the previous two and chose to work toward realistic goals instead of large reforms. It only accepted skilled workers, which meant that it did not have the same level of diversity as the NLU or the Knights of Labor. It did, however, unite its workers under a common goal. Finally, there was the Industrial Workers if the World (IWW). This was by far the most radical and revolutionary union at the time, often resorting to violence to achieve its means. The workers in the IWW were able to unite under the common idea that change was needed and could only be achieved through radical means. Although many goals were not met, each union had a way of uniting their workers as one front against the problems they were facing.
The one goal that the unions did manage to achieve was the shortening of the workday. At the time the unions were formed, long workdays were considered normal. The average laborer’s workday consisted of ten hours of work with only one hour of rest. The work was often hard and this ten-hour day was very tiresome for workers. Many workers at the time had to work even longer than this. The labor unions made shortening this workday one of their main goals. The NLU’s efforts eventually paid off when they managed to shorten the workday for federal workers to eight hours. Unfortunately, this was the only victory that the union movement could claim.
The most important goal for the unions was higher wages for laborers. The method used to achieve this goal was striking, but it proved unsuccessful because the government’s eventual intervention always brought the strikes to their ends. In the Railroad Strike of 1877, which was in protest of cut wages, President Hayes eventually sent the army to stifle the strikers. In the Pullman Strike of 1894, which consisted of a boycott because of lowered wages during a depression, the federal government issued an injunction referring to the ruling of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that restraint of trade was illegal. Eventually, President Cleveland sent troops, who jailed union leaders for violating the injunction. The result of Homestead Strike of 1892, a protest over the fact that the Carnegie Steel Company had lowered wages in spite of increased profits, was slightly different. The government did not intervene to stop the strike, but the company hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency to crush the strikers, eventually leading to the destroyed union ending the strike itself. The goals of increased wages were never met because the inions faced powerful opposition: the corporations themselves and the government. The corporations had the money and the power to crush the unions if they needed to through expensive resources such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency. The President was always willing to stop strikes using the military and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act made the strikes illegal because they were restraint of trade. The unions faced resistance far too powerful for them to ever succeed in their economic goals.
The union movement following the Civil War was successful in some areas, but failed profoundly in others. The unions each managed to unify workers as single fronts against their problems. They also managed to shorten the workday from ten hours to eight. However, they were unable to meet their economic goal of higher wages. The federal government was clearly on the side of the corporations, who already had plenty of resources to fight the unions on their own. This made all of the unions’ strikes unsuccessful, stopping them from achieving their main goal. Although the Unions had their small victories, they faced too much opposition to be able to do most of what they were created for.
In the late nineteenth century, there were four major national trade unions. The first was the National Labor Union (NLU). This union had the goal of uniting all workers, regardless of skill level, area of work race, or gender. It included members of all backgrounds, allowing for diversity and unity of all different workers. The second union was the Knights of Labor. This union was much more radical than the NLU but still held the same goals of equality, leading to the same diverse and unified result. The third union was the American Federation of Labor (AFL). This union was much less radical than the previous two and chose to work toward realistic goals instead of large reforms. It only accepted skilled workers, which meant that it did not have the same level of diversity as the NLU or the Knights of Labor. It did, however, unite its workers under a common goal. Finally, there was the Industrial Workers if the World (IWW). This was by far the most radical and revolutionary union at the time, often resorting to violence to achieve its means. The workers in the IWW were able to unite under the common idea that change was needed and could only be achieved through radical means. Although many goals were not met, each union had a way of uniting their workers as one front against the problems they were facing.
The one goal that the unions did manage to achieve was the shortening of the workday. At the time the unions were formed, long workdays were considered normal. The average laborer’s workday consisted of ten hours of work with only one hour of rest. The work was often hard and this ten-hour day was very tiresome for workers. Many workers at the time had to work even longer than this. The labor unions made shortening this workday one of their main goals. The NLU’s efforts eventually paid off when they managed to shorten the workday for federal workers to eight hours. Unfortunately, this was the only victory that the union movement could claim.
The most important goal for the unions was higher wages for laborers. The method used to achieve this goal was striking, but it proved unsuccessful because the government’s eventual intervention always brought the strikes to their ends. In the Railroad Strike of 1877, which was in protest of cut wages, President Hayes eventually sent the army to stifle the strikers. In the Pullman Strike of 1894, which consisted of a boycott because of lowered wages during a depression, the federal government issued an injunction referring to the ruling of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that restraint of trade was illegal. Eventually, President Cleveland sent troops, who jailed union leaders for violating the injunction. The result of Homestead Strike of 1892, a protest over the fact that the Carnegie Steel Company had lowered wages in spite of increased profits, was slightly different. The government did not intervene to stop the strike, but the company hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency to crush the strikers, eventually leading to the destroyed union ending the strike itself. The goals of increased wages were never met because the inions faced powerful opposition: the corporations themselves and the government. The corporations had the money and the power to crush the unions if they needed to through expensive resources such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency. The President was always willing to stop strikes using the military and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act made the strikes illegal because they were restraint of trade. The unions faced resistance far too powerful for them to ever succeed in their economic goals.
The union movement following the Civil War was successful in some areas, but failed profoundly in others. The unions each managed to unify workers as single fronts against their problems. They also managed to shorten the workday from ten hours to eight. However, they were unable to meet their economic goal of higher wages. The federal government was clearly on the side of the corporations, who already had plenty of resources to fight the unions on their own. This made all of the unions’ strikes unsuccessful, stopping them from achieving their main goal. Although the Unions had their small victories, they faced too much opposition to be able to do most of what they were created for.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Essay #6: Cause of the Civil War
Political tensions between the North and the South first began with the formulation of the first two political parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Later, other tensions also developed with the issue of slavery expansion. Many people say that the Civil War should have started in 1820, but it was delayed by the Missouri Compromise, which admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, while also forbidding slavery above the 36 30’ line. When the issue flared up again, the Compromise of 1850 was issued, giving many advantages to the free North while also creating a very harsh fugitive slave act. The final attempt at a solution came with the Kansas-Nebraska act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise, angering many Northern abolitionists. The many attempts at compromise did not wok, however, and after Lincoln’s election, South Carolina seceded from the union, quickly followed by six other Southern states. The Civil War was caused the struggle between the North and the South for economic and political power. People in the North wanted to contain slavery because they thought its spread would hurt their industry economy, but Southerners felt that they needed slavery to spread in order to maintain political power. When Southern states eventually seceded and the North fought them, their actions were justified by the compact and contract theories respectively.
The conflict between the North and the South over the expansion of slavery was hugely significant before the Civil War. It became an important issue because of the potential impacts it could have on the economy. While the Southern economy was dependent on slavery and the plantation system, the North relied heavily on industry. Both wanted to expand their systems for separate reasons. The Northern industrial capitalists believed that expanding capitalism would benefit them greatly. Expansion of capitalism would lead to an expanded labor pool, which would lower the necessary wages for workers. Expansion of capitalism and industry, however, was impossible in slave states because the economy was already based on slavery and plantation. The people of the North believed that slavery’s expansion would hinder their potential prosperity. Therefore, they saw slavery expansion as a threat and fought against it, which in turn threatened the Southerners.
To the South, the expansion of slavery was necessary for their political survival. If there were more free states than slave states, then the free states would have control of Congress. The issue of slavery was up for debate in numerous territories and states. The South needed some of them to have slavery so that they could maintain equality in Congress and not lose power. When Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860, they saw it as a sign that attempting to work with the union was no longer realistic. Abraham Lincoln had a very strong platform of slavery containment. With a President holding such views, the South recognized that they had very little chance of gaining slavery in any territory or state. This, they believed, would mean that free states and territories would be added, forcing the South to become more and more outnumbered in Congress until they held essentially no power. Eventually, South Carolina seceded because of its loss of political power.
Six other Southern states followed South Carolina in seceding from the union. These states believed that they had the right to do this because they believed in the compact theory. This theory, popular in the South, stated that the federal government was created by the states. Therefore, state laws were supreme when in conflict with federal laws and the states had the power to declare federal laws null and void. If this theory was taken to its extreme, the logical conclusion was secession, which is exactly what happened. The North, however, believed in the contract theory, which stated that the federal government was created by the people and not the states. Therefore, the federal government was supreme and its laws took precedence over state laws. The debate over these two theories had existed since they were created by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, but it was still nowhere near resolved. These two theories existed to give the power to the people who created them The South believed that their states could not be controlled by the federal government, so secession was within their power. The North believed that the job of the federal government was to control the states, so they were justified in attempting to stop the South from seceding. The North and South might not have started the Civil War had they not still been debating two political theories that justified their respective actions.
The Civil War was a result of power struggles between the North and the South. The North attempted to contain slavery because they believed that its expansion would hurt their industry economic power. The South wanted to spread slavery because they believed that containment would take away their political power. Lastly, the entire war started because both sides were justified by their respective theories. These two theories were created to deal with power and its distribution. Ultimately, all decisions made leading to the Civil War were made for political and economic power.
The conflict between the North and the South over the expansion of slavery was hugely significant before the Civil War. It became an important issue because of the potential impacts it could have on the economy. While the Southern economy was dependent on slavery and the plantation system, the North relied heavily on industry. Both wanted to expand their systems for separate reasons. The Northern industrial capitalists believed that expanding capitalism would benefit them greatly. Expansion of capitalism would lead to an expanded labor pool, which would lower the necessary wages for workers. Expansion of capitalism and industry, however, was impossible in slave states because the economy was already based on slavery and plantation. The people of the North believed that slavery’s expansion would hinder their potential prosperity. Therefore, they saw slavery expansion as a threat and fought against it, which in turn threatened the Southerners.
To the South, the expansion of slavery was necessary for their political survival. If there were more free states than slave states, then the free states would have control of Congress. The issue of slavery was up for debate in numerous territories and states. The South needed some of them to have slavery so that they could maintain equality in Congress and not lose power. When Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860, they saw it as a sign that attempting to work with the union was no longer realistic. Abraham Lincoln had a very strong platform of slavery containment. With a President holding such views, the South recognized that they had very little chance of gaining slavery in any territory or state. This, they believed, would mean that free states and territories would be added, forcing the South to become more and more outnumbered in Congress until they held essentially no power. Eventually, South Carolina seceded because of its loss of political power.
Six other Southern states followed South Carolina in seceding from the union. These states believed that they had the right to do this because they believed in the compact theory. This theory, popular in the South, stated that the federal government was created by the states. Therefore, state laws were supreme when in conflict with federal laws and the states had the power to declare federal laws null and void. If this theory was taken to its extreme, the logical conclusion was secession, which is exactly what happened. The North, however, believed in the contract theory, which stated that the federal government was created by the people and not the states. Therefore, the federal government was supreme and its laws took precedence over state laws. The debate over these two theories had existed since they were created by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, but it was still nowhere near resolved. These two theories existed to give the power to the people who created them The South believed that their states could not be controlled by the federal government, so secession was within their power. The North believed that the job of the federal government was to control the states, so they were justified in attempting to stop the South from seceding. The North and South might not have started the Civil War had they not still been debating two political theories that justified their respective actions.
The Civil War was a result of power struggles between the North and the South. The North attempted to contain slavery because they believed that its expansion would hurt their industry economic power. The South wanted to spread slavery because they believed that containment would take away their political power. Lastly, the entire war started because both sides were justified by their respective theories. These two theories were created to deal with power and its distribution. Ultimately, all decisions made leading to the Civil War were made for political and economic power.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
DBQ #6: Changing Roles of Women
Starting in 1815, American society began to change drastically. This was due to two very important events happening: the revolution of industry and the Second Great Awakening. Technology advanced greatly with the invention of the telegraph, the sewing machine, and the assembly line. Agriculture also prospered with the mechanical thresher, a tractor with a steam engine, and the reaper, used to harvest wheat. The Second Great Awakening spread religious zeal and Evangelical ideas throughout America. The Evangelicals promoted education for everyone and applying God’s plan to human institutions. The changes being caused by these two monumental events inspired a number of reform movements, including a campaign for women’s’ rights. Between 1815 and 1860, women evolved from subservient homemakers in the cult of domesticity to leaders and workers. They began to hold actual jobs in factories, had more power in their households due to education, and became more important in society when they took part in the religious revival and in protesting for other reform movements at the time.
When colonists first settled in America, the job of a woman was difficult but not considered to be very important. She was to bear children, cook, clean, and usually undertake other tasks such as sewing, spinning, or occasionally raising animals. Very little changed before the Revolution. After, however, a woman’s job shifted with the new concept of republican motherhood. She was still expected to care for the house, but was now given an actual “important” responsibility. She was in charge of the household and of raising the children to be good Americans. This job, while significant, still confined women to their homes and did not allow them to earn money, forcing them to continue to depend on their husbands for everything, making it impossible for them to be independent. After the start of the Reform Movement, however, this changed, too. Women began to find jobs in factories and mills with other women, such as the Lowell Mill, which was written about in a letter from one of its workers (doc. B). They had to work very long hours and earned little pay compared to that of male workers. Many women also found the work to be “tedious,” but others, such as the writer of the letter, saw the positive side. This work was far from perfect, but it was a step toward positive change for women.
[Note: I didn't remember if you wanted us to include the extra credit about the thresher and the reaper in the essay or just in a post at the end, so I'm doing both. The mechanical thresher was a tractor with a steam engine and the reaper was a tool used to harvest wheat.]
When colonists first settled in America, the job of a woman was difficult but not considered to be very important. She was to bear children, cook, clean, and usually undertake other tasks such as sewing, spinning, or occasionally raising animals. Very little changed before the Revolution. After, however, a woman’s job shifted with the new concept of republican motherhood. She was still expected to care for the house, but was now given an actual “important” responsibility. She was in charge of the household and of raising the children to be good Americans. This job, while significant, still confined women to their homes and did not allow them to earn money, forcing them to continue to depend on their husbands for everything, making it impossible for them to be independent. After the start of the Reform Movement, however, this changed, too. Women began to find jobs in factories and mills with other women, such as the Lowell Mill, which was written about in a letter from one of its workers (doc. B). They had to work very long hours and earned little pay compared to that of male workers. Many women also found the work to be “tedious,” but others, such as the writer of the letter, saw the positive side. This work was far from perfect, but it was a step toward positive change for women.
[Note: I didn't remember if you wanted us to include the extra credit about the thresher and the reaper in the essay or just in a post at the end, so I'm doing both. The mechanical thresher was a tractor with a steam engine and the reaper was a tool used to harvest wheat.]
Monday, November 10, 2008
Essay #5: Nationalism
George Orwell described the purpose of a nationalist as “to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality." Americans sought land expansion before they had even gained their independence, attempting to move west before the British government issued the Proclamation of 1763. After the Revolution, this impulse was acted upon by Thomas Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase. After the war of 1812, this impulse grew even stronger as Nationalism increased. The people of America began to see themselves as one nation and as “God’s chosen people.” Politicians, religious leaders, and educators all argued that America was great and its ideas needed to be spread. This belief, favored by most Americans, was called “Manifest Destiny” and was the basis for many political decisions made in America for many years. Nationalism played a substantially large role in America’s foreign policy in the early nineteenth century through Manifest Destiny, which gave incentive for the creation of the Monroe Doctrine, harmed Indian-American relations and led to the Trail of Tears, and sparked a conflict that ended in war with Mexico. The Monroe Doctrine was created to keep Britain from influencing an area that America hoped to dominate, the Trail of Tears was a result of the Americans wanting Native Americans to move so that Americans could have more territory, and the Mexican-American War started because America seized Mexican territory.
After the Napoleonic Wars, victorious monarch banded together to smother rebellion and stop democracy. There were rumors that Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France would attack the rebellious colonies of Spanish America. This worried many Americans, who thought that the concept of republicanism was in danger, as well as the physical security of their country, Britain was also upset because trade with the Spanish American revolutionaries greatly helped their economy. Britain asked America to join with them in a declaration warning Europeans to stay away from Latin America and renouncing interest in acquiring territory there. Secretary John Quincy Adams, a nationalist, was wary of an agreement because he believed that Britain was seeking to gain control of the Western hemisphere itself. As a nationalist, he wanted America to be able to expand and recognized that the agreement would help Britain to gain power, which would make expansion much more difficult for the United States. Therefore, he convinced Monroe to turn down the offer and issue the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially warned Europeans to stay out of North America. This statement is a clear example of nationalism and Manifest Destiny. The US government wished to expand its territory in North America but saw the threat of European nations asserting dominance first. Naturally, the Americans chose to protect their own interests and power by doing what they could to keep the Europeans away.
The desire for westward expansion continued in the 1820s, showing a continued belief in Manifest Destiny. President Andrew Jackson favored the nationalist idea of expanding American power by expanding territory. Unfortunately, the western part of the continent was occupied by Native Americans. The tribes were officially recognized as separate nations and it had been agreed in the 1790s that land could only be acquired from them through treaties. However, the Americans continually violated these treaties and redrew the lines defining territory multiple times to allow white Americans to move farther west. Other Americans took Manifest Destiny’s justification that America’s superior ideas needed to be spread to heart. They began an attempt at “civilizing” Native Americans by teaching them Christianity as well as American language and lifestyle. Many resisted, but some accepted the white teachings and began to change their lifestyles. Georgia brought multiple issues dealing with Native Americans to the Supreme Court, where John Marshall ruled in their favor. President Jackson, however, refused to enforce the rulings because he wanted Native American land to be open to white Americans. He instead created the Indian Removal Act, which would move all Native Americans east of the Mississippi westward. Many resisted and were killed, but Jackson stilled believed it to be right because it fulfilled the nationalistic need for American land.
In 1845, America’s relationship with Mexico was already fragile when President James K. Polk decided to formerly annex Texas. This alone was a huge territorial expansion, but it did not satisfy Polk. He also wanted to acquire the California-New Mexico region. Unfortunately, his attempt at purchasing the land failed, so he resorted to more aggressive measures. He sent troops into the desired region near the Rio Grande and the Nueces River. When the situation became hostile, America declared war on Mexico supposedly because Mexicans had crossed into America and attacked its citizens. This claim was never verified and was most likely Polk’s excuse so that he could wage war and seize the territory he wanted. America eventually gained one million acres of Mexican land in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the war. Even then, however, Polk was not satisfied. He believed that America could have received even more land from Mexico. Polk obviously saw gaining land as very important, as is shown by the great extents he went to to obtain it. He strongly believed in the nationalist concept of Manifest Destiny and its idea that America had the inevitable right to land because of its superiority.
Nationalism played a profound role in the shaping of American foreign policy in the early nineteenth century because it made Americans desire expansion through Manifest Destiny. The Monroe Doctrine was created to keep foreign influence out of North America so that the United States would be free to expand without competition. Native Americans were forcibly moved west so that white Americans could gain land. They were also forcibly taught American lifestyles because Americans believed that they were superior. Finally, America waged war with Mexico over fifty acres of land because Polk saw expansion as important enough to be worth the risk. In all, most important decisions concerning foreign policy in the United States in the early nineteenth century were made because of the nationalistic belief that America was superior and needed to expand.
After the Napoleonic Wars, victorious monarch banded together to smother rebellion and stop democracy. There were rumors that Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France would attack the rebellious colonies of Spanish America. This worried many Americans, who thought that the concept of republicanism was in danger, as well as the physical security of their country, Britain was also upset because trade with the Spanish American revolutionaries greatly helped their economy. Britain asked America to join with them in a declaration warning Europeans to stay away from Latin America and renouncing interest in acquiring territory there. Secretary John Quincy Adams, a nationalist, was wary of an agreement because he believed that Britain was seeking to gain control of the Western hemisphere itself. As a nationalist, he wanted America to be able to expand and recognized that the agreement would help Britain to gain power, which would make expansion much more difficult for the United States. Therefore, he convinced Monroe to turn down the offer and issue the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially warned Europeans to stay out of North America. This statement is a clear example of nationalism and Manifest Destiny. The US government wished to expand its territory in North America but saw the threat of European nations asserting dominance first. Naturally, the Americans chose to protect their own interests and power by doing what they could to keep the Europeans away.
The desire for westward expansion continued in the 1820s, showing a continued belief in Manifest Destiny. President Andrew Jackson favored the nationalist idea of expanding American power by expanding territory. Unfortunately, the western part of the continent was occupied by Native Americans. The tribes were officially recognized as separate nations and it had been agreed in the 1790s that land could only be acquired from them through treaties. However, the Americans continually violated these treaties and redrew the lines defining territory multiple times to allow white Americans to move farther west. Other Americans took Manifest Destiny’s justification that America’s superior ideas needed to be spread to heart. They began an attempt at “civilizing” Native Americans by teaching them Christianity as well as American language and lifestyle. Many resisted, but some accepted the white teachings and began to change their lifestyles. Georgia brought multiple issues dealing with Native Americans to the Supreme Court, where John Marshall ruled in their favor. President Jackson, however, refused to enforce the rulings because he wanted Native American land to be open to white Americans. He instead created the Indian Removal Act, which would move all Native Americans east of the Mississippi westward. Many resisted and were killed, but Jackson stilled believed it to be right because it fulfilled the nationalistic need for American land.
In 1845, America’s relationship with Mexico was already fragile when President James K. Polk decided to formerly annex Texas. This alone was a huge territorial expansion, but it did not satisfy Polk. He also wanted to acquire the California-New Mexico region. Unfortunately, his attempt at purchasing the land failed, so he resorted to more aggressive measures. He sent troops into the desired region near the Rio Grande and the Nueces River. When the situation became hostile, America declared war on Mexico supposedly because Mexicans had crossed into America and attacked its citizens. This claim was never verified and was most likely Polk’s excuse so that he could wage war and seize the territory he wanted. America eventually gained one million acres of Mexican land in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the war. Even then, however, Polk was not satisfied. He believed that America could have received even more land from Mexico. Polk obviously saw gaining land as very important, as is shown by the great extents he went to to obtain it. He strongly believed in the nationalist concept of Manifest Destiny and its idea that America had the inevitable right to land because of its superiority.
Nationalism played a profound role in the shaping of American foreign policy in the early nineteenth century because it made Americans desire expansion through Manifest Destiny. The Monroe Doctrine was created to keep foreign influence out of North America so that the United States would be free to expand without competition. Native Americans were forcibly moved west so that white Americans could gain land. They were also forcibly taught American lifestyles because Americans believed that they were superior. Finally, America waged war with Mexico over fifty acres of land because Polk saw expansion as important enough to be worth the risk. In all, most important decisions concerning foreign policy in the United States in the early nineteenth century were made because of the nationalistic belief that America was superior and needed to expand.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Essay #4: The Articles of Confederation
Even after separating, America was still far from being a stable nation. In June of 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a government made up of confederated states. About a month later, a committee established by the Congress and led by John Dickinson had created the Articles of Confederation. It was adopted a year later by the Congress and was translated into French after the Battle of Saratoga to persuade France to ally with them by showing that they had an actual government in the making. However, approval of the Articles of Confederation was required by all thirteen states and many refused because of complaints about land. States such as New York and Virginia had large holdings beyond the Allegheny Mountains, mainly because of earlier charter grants. States such as Pennsylvania and Maryland had none and claimed that the states that did would not have retained possession of this land without their help. This land could be sold to pay off debts, while the states without it would have to impose large taxes on their residents. Therefore, they wanted all of the trans-Allegheny land to be turned to the central government. Eventually however, New York gave up its Western claims and Congress announced a plan to dispose of these areas for “common benefit.” Finally persuaded, the states all agreed, with Maryland being the last on March 1, 1781, less than eight months before America’s victory at Yorktown. Eventually, however, the Articles of Confederation were deemed insufficient and were replaced by the Constitution, which formed a completely new government. The Articles of Confederation were profoundly inadequate in their shaping of government as well as the domestic affairs and foreign affairs problems that they caused. The centralized government that it formed was very weak because almost all power was given to the states. The government was unable to help the felling economy because it did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or establish a uniform currency. Lastly, The government was forced to request troops from the states and there was no chief executive or state department to conduct foreign affairs, making the government unable to do anything about the problems that America was facing with European nations.
The central government established by the Articles of Confederation was very weak. Most of the power was instead given to the states. The government was formed this way because many people feared that a strong central government would lead to tyranny and abuse. They were particularly wary of giving too much power to one person because they had just finished a war caused by exactly that. Any centralized authority, they felt, could lead to another King. However, others felt that not having strong centralized authority made the overall government weak. These people were eventually proven right. One example of the crippling inadequacy of the government was the Articles of Confederation’s tax-collection program. Each state had a tax quota and was asked to please contribute that amount on a voluntary basis. The government rarely made a fourth of the amount requested for a year. A stronger central government would simply have taxed the people normally, but this was seen as too similar to the British crown. The result was a feeble and defective system. Another problem with the Articles of Confederation was that each state was given one vote in congress. This meant that the 68,000 people in Rhode Island had the same total influence as the 680,000 Virginians. This allowed some people much more power than others and was contrary to the Declaration of Independence’s message of equality. Congress was also flawed because ratification of the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote, which was basically impossible. This meant that the problems in the Articles of Confederation could not be fixed.
The lack of authority held by the central government caused many domestic problems. After the Revolution, America faced a depression caused by war debts. The government could do nothing about this because it did not have the power to tax, establish a uniform currency, or regulate trade. Because of the lack of uniform currency, notes were often given arbitrary values by different banks and inflation became a serious problem. The different currencies, in combination with trade barriers, made trade between states very difficult. Because the Articles of Confederation did not allow the central government to do anything to fix the economic problems plaguing the country, the states were forced to find their own solutions. Many resorted to taxing. Massachusetts imposed a 30% tax on farmers, which forced most of them into foreclosure or debtor’s prison. Many of these farmers had fought in the war and were angered by this enormous and unfair tax. A man named Daniel Shays led a violent protest demanding an end of foreclosures and a reduction of taxes. The revolt caused little change and the depression raged on, with the government still unable to do anything.
The Articles of Confederation did not only cause problems with domestic affairs, however. Foreign affairs were also seriously impacted. After the war, relationships with European nations were hurt when America did not fully abide by the Treaty of Paris. They did not pay off debts or compensate loyalists whose property had been taken, as they had said that they would. Britain also broke the treaty by not removing their forts from the West. Many European countries doubted the power of America because of the disunity of the states. Many sought ways to exploit America, including Spain, a former ally. Spain and America engaged in heated disputes about the northern boundary of Florida and the navigation rights of the Mississippi River. America was unable to do anything about any of these problems because of the lack of central authority concerning foreign affairs. In order to send an army to deal with a conflict, the government had to request troops from the states. Again, the government could not make decisions of its own for the welfare of the country. There was also no chief executive or state department to conduct foreign affairs, which kept the government from being able to make any real decisions about foreign policy. The central government created by the Articles of Confederation was essentially powerless in this aspect, as well as all others.
The Articles of Confederation were inadequate because they created a very weak central government and caused domestic and foreign affairs problems. The basis of the Congress was flawed and the format of the government gave almost all power to the states, making the central government unable to do anything substantial. The central government could not help the falling economy because it could not impose taxes or regulate trade. It was also unable to develop a uniform currency, which made things even worse. The government was also completely unable to regulate foreign affairs, which was particularly significant because America was facing many problems with European nations after the war. The government could not send troops without requesting them from the Senate, however, and did not have a department to deal with foreign affairs issues. All of these things together caused problems and put America in a very precarious position. It made perfect sense, therefore, when delegates met in May of 1787 to revise America’s government.
The central government established by the Articles of Confederation was very weak. Most of the power was instead given to the states. The government was formed this way because many people feared that a strong central government would lead to tyranny and abuse. They were particularly wary of giving too much power to one person because they had just finished a war caused by exactly that. Any centralized authority, they felt, could lead to another King. However, others felt that not having strong centralized authority made the overall government weak. These people were eventually proven right. One example of the crippling inadequacy of the government was the Articles of Confederation’s tax-collection program. Each state had a tax quota and was asked to please contribute that amount on a voluntary basis. The government rarely made a fourth of the amount requested for a year. A stronger central government would simply have taxed the people normally, but this was seen as too similar to the British crown. The result was a feeble and defective system. Another problem with the Articles of Confederation was that each state was given one vote in congress. This meant that the 68,000 people in Rhode Island had the same total influence as the 680,000 Virginians. This allowed some people much more power than others and was contrary to the Declaration of Independence’s message of equality. Congress was also flawed because ratification of the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote, which was basically impossible. This meant that the problems in the Articles of Confederation could not be fixed.
The lack of authority held by the central government caused many domestic problems. After the Revolution, America faced a depression caused by war debts. The government could do nothing about this because it did not have the power to tax, establish a uniform currency, or regulate trade. Because of the lack of uniform currency, notes were often given arbitrary values by different banks and inflation became a serious problem. The different currencies, in combination with trade barriers, made trade between states very difficult. Because the Articles of Confederation did not allow the central government to do anything to fix the economic problems plaguing the country, the states were forced to find their own solutions. Many resorted to taxing. Massachusetts imposed a 30% tax on farmers, which forced most of them into foreclosure or debtor’s prison. Many of these farmers had fought in the war and were angered by this enormous and unfair tax. A man named Daniel Shays led a violent protest demanding an end of foreclosures and a reduction of taxes. The revolt caused little change and the depression raged on, with the government still unable to do anything.
The Articles of Confederation did not only cause problems with domestic affairs, however. Foreign affairs were also seriously impacted. After the war, relationships with European nations were hurt when America did not fully abide by the Treaty of Paris. They did not pay off debts or compensate loyalists whose property had been taken, as they had said that they would. Britain also broke the treaty by not removing their forts from the West. Many European countries doubted the power of America because of the disunity of the states. Many sought ways to exploit America, including Spain, a former ally. Spain and America engaged in heated disputes about the northern boundary of Florida and the navigation rights of the Mississippi River. America was unable to do anything about any of these problems because of the lack of central authority concerning foreign affairs. In order to send an army to deal with a conflict, the government had to request troops from the states. Again, the government could not make decisions of its own for the welfare of the country. There was also no chief executive or state department to conduct foreign affairs, which kept the government from being able to make any real decisions about foreign policy. The central government created by the Articles of Confederation was essentially powerless in this aspect, as well as all others.
The Articles of Confederation were inadequate because they created a very weak central government and caused domestic and foreign affairs problems. The basis of the Congress was flawed and the format of the government gave almost all power to the states, making the central government unable to do anything substantial. The central government could not help the falling economy because it could not impose taxes or regulate trade. It was also unable to develop a uniform currency, which made things even worse. The government was also completely unable to regulate foreign affairs, which was particularly significant because America was facing many problems with European nations after the war. The government could not send troops without requesting them from the Senate, however, and did not have a department to deal with foreign affairs issues. All of these things together caused problems and put America in a very precarious position. It made perfect sense, therefore, when delegates met in May of 1787 to revise America’s government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)