Unit 6 Re-Write: Successes and Limits of Progressive Era Reformers

The Progressive Era movement emerged as a response to the exposed corruption in the federal government in the post-Reconstruction years. Most progressives were middle-class, white Christians who wanted to preserve the morality of the nation as it underwent dynamic changes.  From 1900 to 1920, although limited by conservative opposition, Progressive Era reformers and the federal government had considerable success in bringing about democratic and political reform on the national level; moreover, Progressive Era Reformers obtained considerable success in meeting their economic reform goals, despite being limited by a conservative Supreme Court; however not all reforms enjoyed success. Efforts for racial reform by the federal government and Progressives were limited by heavy opposition from conservatives and racist organizations and, thereby, were largely unsuccessful.

        Despite being limited by Conservative opposition, the Progressive Era reformers were largely successful in their democratic and political reforms. A 1912 speech by Theodore Roosevelt called for direct election, by the populace, of United States Senators (D). A year later, in 1913, the passage of the 17th amendment established the direct elections Roosevelt had called for, exemplifying a major success in the efforts by the Progressive Era reformers in their crusade for political change and helped curb corruption and partisan politics in the legislative branch.  Further reforms were adopted by state governments on the national level. State reforms such as the initiative, the referendum, and the recall were made possible by progressives like Robert La Follete, governor of Wisconsin, and were soon adopted by the rest of the nation. These reforms were major successes for progressives as they gave the people a way to bypass the government and ensure that government laws, practices, and officials were not corrupt. However, there were some progressives, as displayed by Herbert Croley in New Republic, that believed the reforms of the era were inadequate (F); nevertheless, there was an unprecedented amount of success for progressive reformers between 1900 and 1920. This success, however, was still marginally limited. Conservative interest groups such as large corporations and political machines sought to limit the success of Progressive Era.

The most lasting political reform of the federal government during the Progressive Era concerned suffrage. A 1918 photograph of a suffragist demonstrator illustrated that many American women were still without the right to vote. This longing for the right to vote would, in 1920, cease with the passage of the 19th amendment, giving women suffrage and meeting an immense political progressive reform goal (H).  

Progressive Era reformers had considerable success in meeting their economic reform goals, although they were limited by the Supreme Court. A Washington Post political cartoon portrayed Theodore Roosevelt as a manager of trusts and economic consolidation, hunting “bad trusts” and leaving “good trusts” alone (A). Roosevelt, one of the most dynamic reformers of the era, also established agencies like the Department of Commerce in 1903 and the Bureau of Corporations to limit to limit the monopolization and consolidation of industry. Roosevelt furthered the success of progressive reform when he broke up the Northern Securities Company in 1902 for monopolizing the railroad industry in the Midwest. Roosevelt’s efforts also represented successes in labor reform. For example, Roosevelt served as an arbitrator in a 1901 Tennessee miner’s-strike--an unprecedented move by a president. Moreover, a modification of the Clayton Antitrust Act made it impossible for the act to be used against labor unions and also sought to put an end to discriminatory prices (E). Although it was not enforced by President Woodrow Wilson (who made progressive through his program “New Freedom”), it nevertheless put the practice into written law and was still a significant success of progressives. Another success for labor reform came as a response to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New York, which prompted municipal governments to regulate and improve working conditions. Progressive Era reformers also made significant success in their efforts to reform the service sector of the economy. The Neill-Reynold Report of 1906 uncovered atrocious sanitation conditions in the meatpacking industry. This report, in combination with other works such as Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel, The Jungle, prompted Roosevelt to pass the the Meat Inspection Act in 1907, another major reform success. The success of the progressives and the federal government in reforming the economy were not without limits, however.

The success of the Progressive Era reformers in meeting their economic goals was limited by the Supreme Court. This was most notable in the debate regarding child labor laws. Reformers like Jane Addams, founder of Hull House in Chicago, were outraged at the use of children in the workforce and called  for a focus on education for children rather than labor (C). However, many advocated for child labor. In Hammer v. Dagenhart in 1918 the Supreme Court ruled that the regulation of child labor was not a matter of interstate commerce; therefore, the 1916 Keating-Owen Act and Smith-Lever Acts were ruled unconstitutional and child labor could not be regulated by the federal government. As a result regulation fell to state and local governments where often times little as done to regulate or abolish child labor (G). Progressive reformers also were limited in their efforts for racial reform by racist organizations and culture.

Efforts for civil rights and racial reform  between 1900 and 1920 by progressives was sharply limited by racist culture, and, as a result, reformers met little success. In his magazine The Crisis, W.E.B DuBois noted that African Americans, who had been discriminated against since they gained citizenship, still faced large prejudice in 1919 form the country they fought and died to protect in their involvement in World War II (I). DuBois and other reformers like Ida B Wells, who led a failed campaign to make lynching a federal crime, wanted to reform the racist culture of the United States. Their effort was sharply limited by racist organizations like the Klu Klux Klan who used terrorism and intimidation tactics to keep African Americans in a subjugated position and racism present in American society.

From 1900 to 1920 Progressive Era reformers and the federal government had considerable success, although limited by conservative opposition, in bringing about democratic reform; moreover, Progressive Era Reformers obtained considerable success in meeting their economic reform goals, but were limited by a conservative Supreme Court; however, efforts for racial reform by the federal government and Progressives obtained little success and were limited by heavy opposition from conservatives and racist organizations.

SMART Goal for May 13th

SMART Goal for May 13th 2014: Take last AP practice multiple choice in Kaplan review book. Received grade of 78% use feedback from test to target last-minute studying to modern era (I missed the most from this time period)

SMART Goal for May 12th 2014

SMART Goal for May 12th 2014: Take practice AP exam in back of Kaplan review book. Finished with twenty five minutes left and received score of 61/80 or 76%. Feedback from test showed that I am weakest in the time period 1915 to present.

SMART Goal for April 16th through May 11th: Read chapters nine through thirty in Kaplan review book, finishing review book by the Sunday before the AP exam. Take quizzes after each chapter to measure strength of review.

SMART Goal for 4/4/14 to 4/6/14

SMART Goal for April fourth through 16th: finish review of early American history by reading through chapter nine Kaplan AP exam review booklet.

SMART Goal for 4/3/14: Continue review of Early American History with review of key dates in the age of exploration, colonial, and revolutionary key date flashcards on memrise.

SMART Goal for Spring Break

My SMART Goal for Spring Break was to study Brainscape Flashcards on the first three chapters of the text. I was able to realize my goal; however, I do need to increase my studying time and study more than one source

Impacts of Big Business on Economics and Politics and the Response of the American People

In the post-Civil War era, big business in the United expanded dramatically and rapidly. This expansion led to a stark increase in the production of American goods, in the amount of unskilled laborers, and in the amount of wealth in the country, while simultaneously eliminating small-scale competition and sharply weakening the demand for skilled workers; furthermore, the expansion of big business  caused unprecedented large scale corruption in the political system. The American people responded to these impacts through both an increased participation in consumerism and the formation of both political and economic organizations that sought to curb the prodigious influence of big business on American society.

Big business led to a drastic expansion in the production of American goods and the amount of capital in the nation. Big business al specifically increased the production of energy. A graph showing the food, fuel, and lighting prices as well as the standard of living illustrated that prices for  food, fuel, and lighting declined significantly between 1870 and 1899 and that the standard of living also slightly  decreased. These decreases were due to big business and the ability to mass produce these utilities by companies like Pillsbury and Standard Oil and due to the utilization of technological innovations such as the use of the Bessemer Converter (used to mass produce steel) by US Steel  (A). Mass production also led to an increase in the amount of wealth in the United States. Industrial exports, especially steel, sharply increased because of the mass production of products by massive corporations like US Steel and Ford Automobiles. Through the wealth created by big business, the United States saw the first large scale charity work by industrialists.

Large corporations produced immense, concentrated amounts of wealth in American society; through their concentrated fortunes, many American industrialist were enabled to give back to the nation and society. Andrew Carnegie, in Wealth, stressed the need for the rich to give back to the poor and present them with an opportunity to better their social and economic situation. Carnegie, himself once a poor Irish immigrant, set up a trust to provide libraries for the urban poor as a means of climbing the socioeconomic ladder (E). Other industrial leaders made similar efforts as Carnegie. John D. Rockefeller, for example, set up similar trusts to bolster the situation of the poor. Large scale corporations not only impacted the poor of American society with an increased amount of charity work, but also with an increased amount of job opportunities.

Large-scale businesses also led to a myriad of job opportunities for unskilled workers and minorities. A photograph of female typists in 1902 exemplified the magnitude to which minority groups and unskilled laborers were employed under big business. Although wages were low and working conditions were poor, big business did create hundreds of thousands of previously unavailable job  opportunities for minority groups and unskilled workers (J).  along with new job opportunities came mass production and with this mass production, came the American response of a growing involvement in consumer culture.

The American people responded to mass production by purchasing more goods and strengthening the consumer culture. Theodore Dreiser, in Sister Carrie, illustrated the the effect of department stores on the public and the increasing urbanization and consumerism associated with it. These department stores--such as those of the Montgomery Ward Company--were enabled by the ability to mass produce consumer goods and appealed mostly to those who could afford them--namely, the upper and middle classes (I). So, consumerism was a response to big business’s impact on the American people that was largely limited to the wealthy or those who could afford to consume goods. However, Big Business did sharply limit competition in the market and harm the local economy.

Big business monopolized industry and harmed the local economy. As noted in by George Rice in “How I Was ruined by Rockefeller”, big business eliminated competition through methods such as vertical and horizontal integration, utilizing the theories of economies of scale, and, perhaps most significantly, through the rebate on shipping goods by railroad. Through these practices, small companies had essentially no way to avoid the monopolization of their companies by a bigger one, such as Rockefeller’s Standard Oil (H).  Large scale corporations, utilizing Taylorism, also sharply cut the demand for skilled workers. The economist and engineer David Wells in 1889 discussed this bypass of the skilled worker in the new industrial system (C).  Because Industrialist could produce the same product as a skilled worker more cheaply and efficiently, the decline of the skilled worker came about rather quickly. Big business not only monopolized the economy, but also caused unprecedented corruption in the political system.

Big business impacted American politics by establishing a firm and corrupt foothold in the government. A labor leader in 1887 illuminated the vast amount of control corporation owners had, not only in the economy, but in American society as a whole, most notably in politics (C). The  amount of control big business had in politics was incredibly large, best depicted in these of the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up labor unions by the federal government (which was controlled by industrialists). Joseph Keppler’s political cartoon in Puck described the massive corruption in the political system to the extent that he claimed that the Senate was no longer for the people, but now for the leading industrial tycoons (D).  The American people responded to the unprecedented influence of big business in society by forming political and economic organizations that sought to curb the authority of large corporations.

Perhaps the most significant response of the American people to the impacts of big business on society was the formation of political and economic organizations to combat the authority of big business. Samuel Gompers, leader of the American Federation of Labor, demanded that corporations improve conditions and wages for the worker and recognize the right of workers to unite for a common voice to combat the corporations. Other unions like the Knights of Labor and the Grangers sought to limit the authority of big business and used tactics such as striking. The most notable of which were the Haymarket Square and Pullman Strikes; however, the government did not intervene on the side of labor in either instance, once again illustrating the corruption of the political system by big business. Other organizations sought to use politics as a means to combat big business. The People’s Party stated in their platform that their goal was to limit the influence of big business in the government and return authority to those it belongs to--the people (F). Both the PEople’s party and the Grangers established considerable gains in ending corruption in the political system; The People’s Party removed many corrupt officials from office and the Grangers established laws the benefited farmers. This was a response mostly confined to the poor and the progressives of the  middle class.

In conclusion, Big business impacted the economy through monopolization, increased production, and the employment of unskilled laborers; moreover, big business caused political corruption, to which the American people responded with organizations to combat the authority of big business in society and with increased consumerism

Unit 2 Essay: An "Era of Good Feelings"

 Dustin Messner

          The period after the War of 1812 is historically labeled as the “Era of Good Feelings”, and, while this label was accurate culturally, it proved to be false in the economic and social aspects of American life; furthermore, the politics of 1815 to 1825 initially resembled an “Era of Good of Feelings” but, as time progressed, this label became inaccurate. Therefore, the “Era of Good Feelings” only applies to the rise of cultural nationalism and not the political, social, and economic realities of 1815 to 1825. The period from 1815 to 1825 consisted of a stark rise in nationalism and pride in the American identity, but also of the continual growth of social, economic, and political sectional issues. Nationalism, with its emphasis on pride in the country and federal government, supported the label of an “Era of Good Feelings” however, sectionalism displayed differences in interests based on regions and thereby dismissed the label.

            The rapid growth of cultural nationalism supported the idea that the period after the War of 1812 was an “Era of Good Feelings”. Some of the events of the War of 1812 helped spur Nationalism. For example, in the Battle of New Orleans, American troops overwhelmingly defeated the British troops who had been victorious against Napoleon at Waterloo. This victory helped form the image to the public that the United States had a strong military and an influential position in global affairs; thereby, fostering cultural nationalism. Other examples of cultural nationalism can be found in literature. The circulation of the works of Daniel Webster like his American Spelling Book created an association amongst the population with a unique American identity and culture. Nationalism was also present in works of art, such as John Krimmel’s depiction of a Fourth of July celebration. Krimmel utilizes the symbols of George Washington and the American flag to exemplify American patriotism and unity (C). James Monroe’s Goodwill Tour in 1816 also helped develop a sense of cultural unity and actually earned the label of an “era of good feelings” by the Columbian Centinel, a once Federalist newspaper. Thus, culturally, it was an “Era of Good Feelings” as illustrated in the development of nationalism in works of art and language and a sense of unity amongst the American people. Economically, the “Era of Good Feelings” was largely an inaccurate label.

            The Economic strife and debate from 1815 to 1825 emphasized sectionalism. John Randolph argued that Congress was unfairly levying taxes on the agricultural regions of the West and South, while favoring the industrial Northeast. Randolph is specifically referring to the protective tariff of 1816 meant to protect the textile industry of the Northeast and promote the market for American goods. Because John Randolph was arguing that the people of a certain section (farmers of the West and South) were being taxed unfairly, his argument illustrates economic sectionalism and emphasizes that the economic opportunities were much more abundant in the Northeast than in the West and South (A). Although there were some efforts to unite the economic affairs of the country, such as John C. Calhoun’s effort to unite the country through transportation, they were largely unsuccessful. For example, President James Madison vetoed John C. Calhoun’s Internal Improvements Bill, designed to promote a national transportation system, in 1817, emphasizing the lack of national agreement on the issue of improvements in transportation (B). Economic sectionalism dismissed the label of an “Era of Good Feelings” and was accompanied by social sectionalism.

            Social unrest was a prodigious sectionalist factor from 1815 to 1825. The Density of Population in 1820 illustrated that the North was tremendously more densely populated than the rural South, showing the potential conflict between the urban centers of the Northeast and the agrarian rural society of the South and emphasizing sectionalist differences between the Northeast and the South (E). Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Randolph noted his fears that the issue of slavery would eventually divide the Union. Furthermore, Jefferson wrote his letter in 1820, at the same time as the Missouri Compromise, suggesting that Jefferson believed that the Missouri Compromise was only a temporary fix to the enormous social issue of slavery and the sectional issues it fostered (F).  Politically, there was initial nationalism followed by a large degree of sectionalism.

            The label of an “Era of Good Feelings” was initially an accurate label, but, as time progressed, the label became inaccurate. The decision in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 stated that the federal government had the right to charter a bank, increasing the authority of the national government and emphasizing political nationalism (D). In the Election of 1820, James Monroe won by a landslide and the Federalist party had been destroyed by the Hartford Convention; thus, there was only one political party, leading to a great amount of political nationalism. The Density of Population in 1820 showed that the Northeast had a higher population than the South, meaning that the North controlled the House of Representatives. So, while there was only the Republican party in politics in 1820, there was a large amount of sectional tension between the North and South that would emerge over time (E). Still, in 1823, these tensions had not surfaced yet as John Quincy Adams in a letter emphasized the need for a strong stance against Britain, Spain, Russia, and Prussia--The Holy Alliance. Quincy’s letter stressed an influential role in global affairs and coincided with the Monroe Doctrine—both assertions of political nationalism (H). The presidential elections of 1820 and 1824 illuminated the change over time in nationalism and sectionalism in American politics. In 1820, an overwhelming majority elected James Monroe president, showing an absence of sectionalism; however, in 1824, each candidate received votes based on their section of the country and no candidate received a large majority of the votes. The Election of 1824 also saw the reemergence of the party system and the sectional issues that were present in the legislative, but not executive branch, of 1820 (I). The supporters of Andrew Jackson also proclaimed the election of 1824 a “corrupt bargain” reiterating the sectionalism of the voters and ending the political “Era of Good Feelings.”

            The “Era of Good Feelings” was an accurate label in the cultural aspects of American society; however in economic and social matters the label was largely inaccurate. American politics was initially an “Era of Good Feelings” but saw the emergence of sectionalism and proved the label of an “Era of Good Feelings” inaccurate.

.

Imperial Goals of the British, French, and Spanish

    The imperial goals of the British, French, and Spanish in North America between 1580 and 1763 were similar in that all three European states sought to capture the wealth and commerce offered by the New World and in that they all used imperialism as a means of increasing the authority, territory, and influence of their state; however, the British, French, and Spanish imperialistic goals differed in that Britain's religious goals were those regarding asylum, while the French and Spanish sought to gain converts; moreover, the relationships the British, French, and Spanish wanted to form with the natives differed drastically. These goals continued to be a main focus of the British, French, and Spanish imperial efforts from 1580 to 1763. All three European powers sought to capture the wealth and commerce of the New World--namely, they sought to take advantage of the abundance of raw materials and the market for trade offered by North America--which caused economic and political tensions between the three states; therefore, the goal of capturing the wealth offered by the New World was the most significant goal and forged the relationships and tensions between the British, French, and Spanish in both North America and Europe.  

The British, French, and Spanish all sought to capture the wealth and commerce in North America. The British imperialistic goals in the New World included utilizing the North American as a means to acquire raw materials, such as lumber, to be made into finished goods in England; similarly, the French commercial goals consisted of capturing the lucrative fur trade in North Eastern America; likewise, the Spanish used their imperial holdings to obtain valuable resources such as gold and silver for vast wealth in Spain. Although the English and French both initially sought gold in North America, it was soon discover that no gold was present in the French and British imperial holdings and they sought out other means to acquire wealth and commerce in North America—the continuous economic imperial goal of the British, French, and Spanish. All three European states had goals of using their imperial possessions as a source for agricultural surpluses.  The British used their colonies for tobacco and other cash crops such as wheat to be transported to England in the Triangle Trade; similarly, both the French, with their prized colony of Saint-Dominique, and the Spanish, with their holdings in the Caribbean—such as Cuba—established large plantations or Encomiendas for the production of sugar, rice, and cotton to be transported back to Europe for consumption and use.  Perhaps the most reinforcing evidence that the British, French, and Spanish has similar economic goals for their North American imperial holding was that they all had a common motive. All three European powers were driven in their economic goals of imperialism by mercantilism and the idea that the world’s wealth was finite. The imperial goals of the British French and Spanish were also similar in that they all sought to increase the authority of their respective states.

The British, French, and Spanish all had imperial goals of increasing the influence and authority of their society. The desires of the British, French, and Spanish to expand their influence are best demonstrated with the continuous state of conflict in and around their imperial holdings. For example, The British colony at Jamestown found itself in constant conflict with the Native American Powhatan tribe. Moreover, these three European often came into conflict with one another. Instances like Queen Anne’s War and eventually the French and Indian War were causes of each state’s desire to expand their influence. The desire for territorial expansion was fostered by the influence of nationalism and mercantilism in Europe. Nationalism, through its belief that one’s ethnic group or state was superior to others, encouraged territorial expansion through patriotism. Mercantilism encouraged territorial expansion because it firmly expressed the idea hat the world’s wealth was finite; therefore, mercantilism created a sense of urgency among the European nations to posses as much of the limited amount of wealth as possible by acquiring new territories where new wealth was present. This territorial expansion incorporated native inhabitants into the European empires and each of these empires dealt with these natives in different ways.

The British, French, and Spanish all differed in their treatment of natives. The British sought to isolate themselves from natives or “transplant” British society in North America, visible in their construction of forts such as the one at Jamestown; however, in contrast, the French formed an integrated relationship with natives, especially the Algonquin, in order to gain access to the coveted fur trade; moreover, the Spanish differed from the French and British in that they exploited the native peoples by making them work and die on sugarcane Encomiendas in the Caribbean and in gold and silver mines in Mexico. The British goal from 1580 to 1763 was one of isolation; overtime, however, the British came into increasing interaction with natives, although they still pursued the goal of isolation. Another difference amongst the imperial goals of the British, French, and Spanish was that of a religious nature.

The religious goals of the British were those of asylum; whereas the French and Spanish sought to gain converts.  The religious dominations of the British colonists were mostly puritan and were mostly persecuted groups, for example, the Quakers and Puritans both immigrated to North America to escape persecution in England; however, in contrast, the French and Spanish were both Catholic and the Jesuit missionaries of both states made efforts to convert the masses of North America to Catholicism; moreover, the Spanish established missions on the Camino Real such as Mission San Diego and Mission San Luis Obispo. 

The British, French, and Spanish imperial goals were mostly consistent from 1580 to 1763. The British, French, and Spanish all sought to acquire raw materials and increase commerce with their imperial holdings in North America and they all had imperial goals of expanding their territory, authority, and influence; however, they differed in that the British sought religious asylum in the New World, while the French and Spanish sought to convert and in that they all wanted to form different relationships with the indigenous population of North America.