Progressive Era DBQ rewrite

                The first twenty years of the twentieth century are known in America today as the progressive era. As Americans sought to bring change to their society, a variety of reform began to gain momentum, such as the prohibition movement, feminist movement, and several movements dedicated to diminishing the corruption and power of large corporations. Both progressive reformers and the federal government experienced a degree of success in the passage of laws enacting such reforms – such as prohibition and women’s suffrage- however they were for the most part unsuccessful in reforming in other areas such as racial equality and child labor due to the influence of those who opposed them, such as corporations and prevailing sentiments among whites.

                Reformers saw success as a result of their efforts in many of their campaigns. For instance, the prohibition movement won ratification of the 18^th amendment in 1919, banning alcohol in all parts of the United States, completely accomplishing their goal. The feminist movement saw success in their part as well, obtaining a substantial victory with the passage of the 19^th amendment, winning nationwide women’s suffrage, despite significant resistance from President Wilson (doc H). Reformers also won victories in the regulation of food and drug quality with the passage of both the Meat Inspection Act, and the Pure Food and Drug Act. The movement had gained significant support, including that of the President, following the Neill-Reynolds Report in 1906, which depicted the deplorable conditions in which meat was being packed (doc B).

                Not all reformers of the progressive era were successful however, many movements made very little progressed, and others, despite initially experiencing success, regressed. The civil rights movement was one of such movements, as can be observed in the shock of African-American veterans of WWI. These soldiers expected to return home to a hero’s welcome, instead they were greeted with disdain as racism in the United States persisted unhampered (doc I). The hostility experienced by these individuals accurately demonstrates the failure of the efforts of the civil rights movement in that era, as equality was far from obtained in American society. Even those movements who experienced success had setbacks. The feminist movement was unable to accomplish many of their goals that expanded farther than the 19^th amendment. The passage of this act, despite granting women suffrage, actually caused a decrease in voter ship in the US, demonstrating its basic ineffectiveness on society at that time. The prohibition movement too experienced significant defeat with the repeal of the 18^th amendment with the 21^st amendment, effectively nullifying their sufcess.

                Many Americans believed that the Federal Government was the only body who could effectively instigate reform. Citizens elected President Roosevelt, a progressive, to do so. Roosevelt acted to eliminate- as Luis Brandeis labeled them in his book- “bad trusts”, whist acting to protect and stimulate “good trusts”, qualities which they believed they could distinguish (doc A), by “trust busting”. President Wilson also engaged in anti-monopoly reform. With his “New Freedom” policy, Wilson passed the Clayton Anti-trust act in 1914, and strengthened the Sherman anti-trust act, which had previously been relatively weak. The federal government also had significant victories over corruption within itself. It instituted the 17^th amendment, requiring the direct election of senators, reducing the hold of corporations and political “bosses” over the federal government (doc D).

                The Government, much like the progressives was not completely successful, despite it’s various achievements. Instances of failure to reform can be observed in Herbert Croly’s sentiments in The New Republic that President Wilson, despite presenting himself as a reformer, actually did very little in regards to reform. The rest of the federal government can be observed in failure to reform as well, as it did very little to inhibit child labor, and the efforts it did take were often overturned, such as in Hammer v. Dagenhart (doc G). Efforts that did not get overturned were often ineffective and under regulated, as the government made very few efforts to enforce them, due to this, many children were enlisted into the labor force at very young ages (doc C).

                Overall, during the first two decades of the 20^th century, due to efforts of reformers and the federal government, many various reforms were put into effect, such as suffrage and prohibition. Neither institution however experienced complete success, as both were largely (although not completely) unsuccessful in reforming on behalf of child labor and racial equality. This mixture of success and failure demonstrates the mixed effectiveness of both institutions.

all further updates for my review progress will be on tumblr at http://www.tumblr.com/blog/vhsapushreview

My goal for tonight was to read, highlight, and take the quiz at the end of chapter 1 of my review book

My goal for tonight was to read and take the quiz in chapter 1 of my review book, and to take the quiz at the end

Spring break review

My goal was to read and highlight my chapter 1 and 2 notes

The Influence of Big Business in the Gilded Age, and the responses of Americans to it

The Period that emerged from the ashes of the Civil war and the end of reconstruction, following the compromise of 1877 was known widely as the Gilded Age. This term,coined by the renowned author, Mark Twain, alluded to the fact, that despite the seeming affluence of the era, it was only covered in this “layer of gold”, easily stripped away revealing the widespread destitution of the masses.  From 1870 to 1890, Big business became a dominant force in American life. These institutions swelled and became glutted, and because of the power that accompanies wealth, these robber-barons seized control of not only the economy,  but of the political system as well. With this power, they were able to operate without constraints, for instance they could mistreat their employees, but unions unprotected by a government acting in favor of the businesses were unrecognized, and their efforts circumnavigated. Big business had some benefits, such as lowering consumer costs, however this benefit was not with out cost, workers were often at the expense of such price-cutting.In response to this gross imbalance of power in favor of the all-encompassing control of Big Businesses, Americans took action: they created labor unions for mistreated workers, farmers unions, and attempted to improve the plight of the poor.

During the so-called gilded age, both patronage and the political machines were common ways in which big businesses seized control over the political system and the government. In cities and towns in all regions of the country, big business took advantage of the - impoverished- particularly recent immigrants- using political “bosses” such as the infamous Tamany Hall in New York, who gave those in need things such as financial aid, food, shelter, and employment in return for their vote. This control that Big Businesses exercised over the votes of the people often resulted in the election of  the businesses chosen representatives to the senate, where big business had a particularly powerful influence. This degree of control can be observed in Joseph Kepler's 1889 political cartoon, “the Bosses of the Senate”, which depicts trusts as glutted money bag-men looming over the senate, presumably controlling it, and the peoples entrance shut tight, inferring their increasing lack of influence over politics at the hands of big business (doc D). Perhaps the industry that had the most influence over the government however was the railroad industry, and its corporations. Due to their massive affluence and minimal limitations, this sect of big businesses acted on whim. They dismissed employees without cause, withheld wages, indefinitely delayed charges made against them, censured the press, controlled elections, and dictated legislation, they essentially controlled the government (doc B). An example of such corruption can be observed in the Credít Moblier scandal that occurred during the Grant administration; members of congress were bribed by the Credít Moblier construction company in order to prevent an investigation of their fraudulent contracts with the Union Pacific Railroad company, that cost the government millions. The affluent, such as Andrew Carnegie (despite his philanthropic acts) justified this contol because of their belifes in modern philosophies such as Social Darwinism which detailed that the rich were more “fit” to be in a position of power than the poor, and because of this superiority they were able to do “better [for the poor] than they would could do for themselves (doc E)

Big businesses seized control of the brunt of American life not only through politics, but the economy as well. They grew in size and power primarily because they were often able to undercut their competition, driving those who opposed them -often smaller companies- to bankruptcy, or forcing them to give into horizontal or vertical integration, or the trust. Large companies such as Standard Oil, led by James D. Rockefeller utilized horizontal integration to its full effect in an attempt to control every step of the process of the industry from source to sale by making deals with railroad companies in order to obtain lower prices than those of their competitors and drive them to destitution and ruin (doc H). Not only did big business change the economy  though the integration of other -often smaller- companies into their own but also by changing the nature of unskilled labor. They did this through the principles of Taylorism, and by using Ford’s assembly line. This new organization was at the bane of the working class, now forced to repeat the same monotonous task over and over, causing extreme boredom (doc C). Workers were robbed of their individuality as a sameness came to characterize their work (doc J). However, despite the working classes sentiments, these new, more efficient techniques in combination with new transport technology led to a decrease in the prices of food, fuel, and lighting across the nation in addition to the cost of living (doc A). As these prices plummeted, the line between “want” and “need” blurred, as new department stores opened and individuals, particularly women, started spending more and more on non- essential items (doc I).

The American people, in particular farmers and industrial workers, were acutely aware of the effects of big business on politics and responded accordingly. The AFL for instance, a labor union, campaigned for the overall improvement of the working conditions of skilled laborers; they demanded shorter working hours- as exemplified with their slogan, “8 hours for work, 8 hours for rest, and 8 hours for what we will”-, higher wages, and compensation for injury or death in work-related incidences (doc G). Another example  of Americans response to big business can be observed in the Populists “Peoples Party Platform” in Omaha, in which the populists, who  were primarily rural farmers, campaigned for the establishment of the silver standard to alleviate the plight of the poor, and the regulation of the railroad corporations, so that they would be forced to provide fair and unbiased rates for their shipping services (doc F). These reformers were met with moderate success, and were unable to enact laws limiting big business such as the Pendleton act, which required a certain number of government employees to take a literacy test in order to assume their appointment. They also were able to pass the interstate commerce act, which banned the discrimination over long and short hauls and required that railroads post rate schedules and file them with the government.

Overall, throughout the Gilded age, big businesses were allowed to expand in size and in power, this expansion not only allowed them to take control of the economy, but both the federal and local governments as well. Big businesses were able to pervade the government through a system of bribery and because of a lack of barriers to prevent them from doing so. They were able to control the economy because little stood to oppose them, much because of integration, the trust, and their control of the government. The American people were not however content to sit back and watch as this corruption and injustice stormed the country, they responded with the formation of unions, political parties,

Unit 2 DBQ rewrite

                Despite the fact that the period following the War of 1812 has traditionally been dubbed by historians as being  the “Era of Good Feelings”,  we can observe that this title has been improperly bestowed upon this period; due to the persistence of sectionalism- the favoring of the interest of  a geographic area or group over the interests of the nation- within the country, and the examples of it greatly outnumbering those that displayed nationalism- the devotion to the nation’s interest as a whole- that would have been present had this period truly been an “Era of Good Feelings”. Throughout the era there was continual sectionalist and nationalist conflict between the North and the South as demonstrated by the controversy over the Protective Tariff of 1816, the various causes of the panic of 1819, and the altercations concerning the representation of the south in the new western states and slavery.

            Throughout the era following the war of 1812, the predominance of sectionalism serves to refute the statement that this period was and “Era of Good Feelings”, for the discontent of the sectionalists does not conform to the very idea of “Good Feelings”.  A sample of thie prevalence of sectionalism can be seen in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Randolph in 1820. Jefferson speaks pessimistically of the issue dividing the Northern and Southern states and leading them ultimately to a conflict: the Missouri Crisis.  He is concerned that this altercation, due to the sectionalism of each of the opposing sides of the country, would divide the union in an irreparable manner. For the Missouri compromise, despite temporarily quelling the disagreement, did not settle it completely, and as we can see in the density of population map made in 1820, many individuals were living or moving to the Northern states and Western territories. This heavy occupation of the Northern states and the potential addition new states into the union as free states rather than slave resulted in unrest within the South and resentment towards the Northern states. This resentment of the north can be seen in John Randolph’s 1816 address to Congress, when he articulated his discontent for the protective tariff of 1816. Randolph disliked the tariff because, despite protecting American manufacturing from European competition, and the benefit it would have on the country over a long span of time, it currently placed a heavier burden on the agriculturalist of the south. Randolph viewed this as an injustice upon the impoverished people of the south and he voiced his disdain of those of the north, where manufacturing was a primary industry, who would be first benefit from the tariff. This document is an example of sectionalism because it exemplifies that not only was their sectional disagreement over the tariff, but also that Congress itself was not a wholly nationalistic institution. Sectionalism is again typified in Chief Justice John Marshalls ruling in the 1819 case of McCulloch vs. Maryland. McCulloch vs. Maryland occurred when the state of Maryland attempted to tax the National Bank into oblivion within their state. Maryland as a whole disagreed with the constitutionality of the institution, and wished to be rid of it. McCulloch, a member of the bank, refused to pay the tax and Maryland filed a suit. Marshall ruled in an example of nationalism against Maryland, affirming the powers of Congress. However, despite Marshall’s act of nationalism, underlying feelings of sectionalism are still seen within this document. These feelings are prevalent in Maryland’s actions, as they acted only within the interest of their section, supporting not the national bank, but their own state banks. Fueling the fire of sectionalism, John C. Calhoun’s 1817 address to Congress, proposing internal improvements for the nation, such as to connect all regions of it with roads in order to solve the transportation issues that arose in the war of 1812 and to unite the nation, was passed by Congress, but vetoed by the President. This bill, had it been passed, may have averted much of the arising conflict.  However, as it was vetoed, it led only to more sectionalism.  

Acts of sectionalism can once again be observed in the 1824 presidential election, when no candidate achieved a majority vote and the choice was left to the House of Representatives. Adams was chosen due to Henry Clay’s endorsement and influence over Jackson, who had received the most votes. This act, as it deprived the person whom had received the most votes for the Presidency in favor of personal aims, was an act of sectionalism. In Anna Hayes Johnson’s 1822 letter to her cousin from Charleston, South Carolina, she discusses the recent prevention of a slave rebellion. This document shows the sectionalism that existed within the south as they ardently defended the institution of slavery.

            Despite the overwhelming existence of sectionalism, a few examples of nationalism may be observed. For instance, John Krimmer’s painting of the 1819, Philadelphia Fourth of July celebration, depicts merriment, displays of nationalism such as a hung picture of George Washington, a copy of the Declaration of Independence, and an American flag. John Quincy Adam’s 1823 diary entry also exemplifies nationalism as he assumes a position of opposition to the formation of the Holy Alliance forming in Europe. This action, in spite of the other countries involved with the alliance, is an act of nationalism, as he values his country over all others.

            Overall, the so called “Era of Good Feelings” was not as it seemed to appear. The rising acts of sectionalism between the Northern in Southern states concerning slavery and representation, exemplified hostilities and disagreements that persisted within the nation; these examples far overwhelm those of the expected nationalistic sentiment. In conclusion, the statement that this post War of 1812 era was one of “Good Feelings” is a false one.