Category: American history

Essay on French and Indian War

The French and Indian War was fought between the colonies of Great Britain and New France, supported by American Indian allies on each side.

The French and Indian War (1754–1763) The war was fought primarily between the colonies of Great Britain and New France, with each side supported by forces from Europe also as American Indian allies. In 1756, the war erupted into a worldwide conflict between Britain and France. The first targets of the British colonists were the royal French forces and therefore the various American Indian forces allied with them.

Background of war

The war was fought primarily along the border separating New France from British colonies from Virginia to Nova Scotia. The territory encompassed roughly the present-day states of Ohio, eastern Indiana, western Pennsylvania, and northwestern West Virginia. the difficulty of settlement within the region is taken into account to possess been a primary explanation for the French and Indian War and a later contributing factor to the American Revolutionary War.

Within the 17th century, the world north of Ohio had been occupied by the Algonquian-speaking Shawnee. Around 1660, during a conflict referred to as the Beaver Wars, the Iroquois seized control of the Ohio Country, driving out the Shawnee and conquering and absorbing the Erie tribe. The Ohio Country remained largely unusual for many years and was used primarily for hunting by the Iroquois.

Territorial Dispute

With the invasion of the Europeans, the region was claimed by Great Britain and France, both of which sent merchants into the world to trade with the Ohio Country Indians. the world was considered central to both countries’ ambitions of further expansion and development in North America. At an equivalent time, the Iroquois claimed the region by right of conquest. The rivalry between the 2 European nations, the Iroquois, and therefore the Ohio natives for control of the region played a crucial part in the outbreak of the French and Indian War in the 1750s.

The Outbreak of War

The war began in May 1754 due to these competing claims between Britain and France. Washington, gave the command to fireside on French soldiers This incident on the Pennsylvania frontier proved to be a decisive event that led to imperial war. For subsequent decades, fighting happened along the frontier of France and British America from Virginia to Maine. The war also spread to Europe as France and Britain looked to realize supremacy within the Atlantic World.

After initially remaining neutral, the Ohio Country Indians and most of the northern tribes largely sided with the French and British and fared poorly within the first years of the war. In 1754, the French and their American Indian native allies forced Washington to surrender at Fort Necessity, In 1755, Britain dispatched General Edward Braddock to the colonies to request Fort Duquesne. The French, aided by the Potawotomis, Ottawas, Shawnees, and Delawares, ambushed the 1,500 British soldiers and Virginia militia who marched to the fort. The attack sent panic through the British force, and many British soldiers and militiamen died, including General Braddock. The campaign of 1755 proved to be a disaster for the British. The sole British victory that year was the capture of Nova Scotia. In 1756 and 1757, Britain suffered further defeats with the autumn of Fort Oswego and Fort Henry.

Conference between the French and American Indian leaders around a ceremonial fire by Vernier: this is often a scene from the French and Indian War (1754– 1763), depicting the alliance of French and American Indian forces. The war began to show in favor of the British in 1758, due in large part to the efforts of William Pitt, Pitt pledged huge sums of cash and resources to defeating the hated Catholic French, and Great Britain spent a part of the cash on bounties paid to new young recruits within the colonies, helping invigorate British forces. In 1758, the Iroquois, Delaware, and Shawnee signed the Treaty of Easton, aligning themselves with the British reciprocally for a few contested lands around Pennsylvania and Virginia. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military successfully penetrated the heartland of New France, with Quebec falling in 1759 and Montreal finally falling in September 1760. The French empire in North America began to crumble.

Essay on Differences between the Holocaust and Japanese Internment Camps

Following the Great Depression, the idea of the U.S. entering World War II may have sounded appalling. Families would be torn apart, sons killed in battle, and strenuous years to come. Nobody knew whether the U.S. would win or not and it was a time of constant fear. All of this was terrible, but no one seems to mention the bits of good that came out of the war, particularly on the U.S. homefront. Entering the war vastly improved the U.S. economy, gave well-needed opportunities to minorities all over the country, and brought all Americans together toward one cause, regardless of gender or race. Americans stayed true to their country and remained tough throughout the war.

A major component of contributing to the war cause from the home front was rationing. Families throughout the U.S. rationed what they bought and consumed, primarily being: gas, food, and raw materials (Lee). All U.S. citizens needed to buy ration books that had stamps in them that would, in essence, track and cap how much one bought of a certain item (Salisbury and Kersten). This was enforced through the War Production Board which “[ensured] that such important resources would be primarily allocated to the production of weaponry, equipment, uniforms, and other essential military items” (Lee). Although this was tough for many families to swallow, it shows how much a common goal could unite a country. The production of consumer goods began to decrease and families started to buy necessities only (Lee). Americans were putting America first, not their selves. Many even planted their gardens, known as “Victory Gardens” (Salisbury and Kersten). They did this because food was so tight and they wanted to help the war cause in any way they could. Because the government ran these rationing organizations and was becoming more involved, some citizens started to get upset about how big a role the government had (Jeffries). This, of course, led to increased black market trade in which consumer goods and tightly rationed items were sold (Jeffries). Overall though, Americans realized the responsibility they had at the home front and did as much as they could for the sake of those who protected them.

The American people stepped up when they needed to in desperate times of war and because they worked their tails off the U.S. economy boomed. The urban population skyrocketed and unemployment dropped from 14.6% in 1940 to 1.2% in 1944. In addition, the “gross national product and national income more than doubled in those same four years” (Jeffries). A major reason for this was that so many men went off to war, which led to a surge in job openings. During the Great Depression, there were not enough jobs but during World War II, there were plenty of job opportunities. For one of the first times in American history, women and African Americans began to get better jobs, specifically ones that men at war had held beforehand (Jeffries). On the other hand, other minorities were not so lucky. Japanese Americans and German Americans experienced extreme discrimination and hostility. Japanese Americans, in particular, arguably had it the worst. There was concern all over the country that many Japanese Americans were spies for Japan (Lee). This speculation led Franklin D. Roosevelt to “issue Executive Order 9066, which allowed for the forcible relocation of Japanese Americans to internment camps” (Lee). These internment camps were more like prisons; they were in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. Living in terrible unhealthy and unhealthy conditions, they were also given little food or necessities needed to survive (Lee). Unfortunately, a high majority of these Japanese American families were incarcerated for no reason. Yet many of them still rooted for the U.S. to win, the country that betrayed their loyalty and trust. Although Japanese internment camps were not on the level of the concentration camps during the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, they were still a disgusting moment in U.S. history that should be learned from.

Life on the U.S. home front during World War II was fast-paced with a lot of work to be done, but there were still small opportunities built in for free time. During the war, Americans liked to enjoy their free time by attending the cinema, catching up on sporting events, and listening to music and the radio (Jeffries). In particular, the radio played a huge role in the lives of American families during the war. Radios were everywhere at the time and “90 percent of American families owned at least one radio and listened to an average three to four hours a day” (Horton 46). People listened to the radio for updates on the war, music, and any popular news at all. It was a big change considering no one had access to this immediate news in World War I. What also drew the American people to the radio was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” which would bring in almost half the country at a time to listen (Horton 46). These chats encouraged the American people to keep home and to churn along. It worked because it was the first time that people would be able to constantly hear the voice of their President during wartime. The chats brought feelings of comfort and protection to the American people who lived in constant stress. Furthermore, radios were an effective tool used to spread propaganda all over the country. Propaganda was not just limited to radios though, one could find political and war propaganda virtually anywhere. Newspapers, posters, books, and schools all spread propaganda. (Sutherland 105). Even children had to deal with propaganda as “comic books, toys, and games all had war themes” (Sutherland 106). This led to the spread of rumors that worsened the fear that Americans were already in, but also rumors that brought hope and pride to the country.

The course of war is a terrible, life-wasting event. Sons, brothers, husbands, and friends went out to war and never came back. Young men who had the potential to be incredible fathers never returned. But, war does bring a nation together and the U.S. home front during World War II is a perfect example of that. Americans realized what had to be done and were up for the task, displaying the true and honorable way to be an American.

The Age of Growth for America

Prior to the late 19th century, America played a minimal role in worldly matters. However, this isolation would change due to imperialism, which is the political, military, and economic control of powerful countries over weaker territories. European nations and Japan initially started the race of acquiring new territories in the 1800s, and in due course, America would join in on the competition as well. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. Made by a Washington D.C. newspaper, the statement refers to the connection between imperialism and military technology. The two correlate since a way to display a nation’s authority is through how advanced its military is. Advanced military technology within a nation demonstrates to other countries that it is a force to be reckoned with and asserts that it will use its advantages to its benefit when necessary. Military historian and officer in the U.S. Navy, Alfred T. Mahan, published ‘The Influence of Sea Power Upon History in 1890’. In this book, he stressed the importance of America improving its navy and stated that it was necessary to obtain foregin bases so ships could refuel. Mahan’s work ultimately transformed America’s military technology as the nation grew to have the third largest navy in the world within the next ten years. The United States upgrade of their military stood as a threat to any nation that attempted to impede the goal of dominating territories and countries all around the world.

New Manifest Destiny, also known as American expansion, was justified in numerous ways. The main reasoning for American imperialism was Social Darwinism, a concept that describes that only the fittest who encounter life’s competitive struggles are bound to survive. This notion is implemented in New Manifest Destiny as it formulated that America, a superior country to most others, has a duty of civilizing, educating, and governing those nations considered to be incapable. Josiah Strong was a religious missionary who wrote ‘Our Country’, where he explains that it was America’s responsibility to expand their values, specifically religious beliefs (Christinaity) to weaker nations. His book influenced other missionaries to spread Christinaity throughout the world in hope of gaining converts. Frederick Jackson Turner wrote ‘The Significance of the Frontier in American History’. In the essay, he explained that the frontier, which was so unique to the U.S., had been closed, and it was pivotal for Americans to have a vast area of land in order to flourish. Turner’s piece of text affected imperialism as well because it pushed Americans to expand overseas so that they could succeed. The aforementioned justifications for New Manifest Destiny all differently targeted why imperialism was salient for America to progressively become an influential leader in the world that had much power.

The Spanish-American war was fundamentally triggered because Cuba wanted to be free from Spain. Though, because of America’s growing influence in worldly affairs, the nation ended up getting dragged onto the battlefield. Americans pitied the Cubans as it had evoked their own revolutionary heritage, while others had concerns regarding their economic interests in Cuba. Another cause for the Spanish- American war was the confidential letter written by Enrique Dupuy de Lome toi Washington, D.C., which got leaked to William Randolph Hearst. Hearst was a newspaper publisher who made articles that evoked a sense of dislike among readers towards the Spainsh government. He published Enrique’s letter that used words to bash President McKinley by describing him as a weak and stupid politican. These adjectives brought about a sense of jingoism, or aggressive and warlike nationalism amongst the American people. The Spanish-American only an eight day war, but it had significant outcomes for the primary countries involved. The war also occurred due to Spanish General Valeriano Weyner as he forced the rural Cuban population into reconcentration camps, where they were deprived of basic resources needed to live. Spain eventually agreed to get rid of these camps and make other compromises, but America had already made its decision to consider war. The Spanish- American war only happened for eight days, but it had significant outcomes for the primary countries involved. The bloodshed ended with the Treaty of Paris and within this treaty, Spain sold the Philippines to the U.S. The Teller amendment (passed by Congress before the war) blocked the U.S. from owning Cuba but did not appeal to the Philippines. The Platt amendment were terms under which Cuba was allowed independence and permitted America to do whatever necessary when necessary maintain order in Cuba. Both of their purposes were to show a prime example of America’s flourishing and developing power within the government to institute such acts to control other nations and territories. Spain’s selling of the Philippines and the Teller amendment sparked debate whether or not the islands should be dominated by the U.S. President McKinley was one.

The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries acted as an age of growth for America. Through imperialism, the nation came on top and demonstrated to the rest of the world that it was powerful and set a precedent for future leaders to deal with foreign matters.

Should Andrew Jackson Be on the $20 Bill? Essay

According to Kimberly Amadeo, “65 percent or around $580 billion U.S. bills in circulation are currently used outside the U.S. 75 percent consisting of $100 bills, 55 percent $50 bills, and 60 percent of $20 bills”, which have Andrew Jackson’s portrait on them. To foreign eyes abroad, President Jackson represents our country, our treasury, and our countries financial backbone or currency. Thanks to modern media and technology, Andrew Jackson’s checkered past has resurfaced and become common knowledge among most American’s and thus many of the consumers worldwide. If interpreted as part of our countries values, character, and intolerance it has now become a liability for a multitude of reasons. Through many decisions Andrew Jackson made, he no longer represents this country’s values, sense of equality, and ever-evolving principles displayed daily on the world stage.

In Jackson’s presidency, Native Americans and African Americans were majorly mistreated. Jackson did not give off a good first impression on the world. Towards the beginning of his presidency, Jackson believed that the Native American Indians could simply be mixed in with the white population and through integration, absorb American/English culture, values, practice, and religion. Think of it like this, Jackson basically just put all these people together expecting them to get along with the Native American Indian slowly converting to the settler way of life and culture. Unfortunately, the natives did not adjust well and pushed back through protest which he, in turn, released them to go back to their normal way of life, but a direction or process had been put in motion. When they went back to their regular life, Jackson as well as many others eventually feared them and viewed them as a perceived threat to the colonial way of life. In 1831, Jackson submitted a law to remove them and have them relocated but the law did not pass. Instead, he created a treaty authorizing the Indians to be removed and transported to a new place. Jackson had little concern for what the government or people said or wanted, and per his earned reputation, acted independently and on his own accord often taking action and implementing policies without permission or support. It was only two years after Jackson left Congress that the Indian Removal Act was completed in 1831. At this time, Jackson was also a proponent of slavery. He believed in order to pay off the country’s debt, slaves should be used. He had a reputation of being a harsh taskmaster and treated his slaves with tremendous cruelty. According to Bill John Baker, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, “In one notorious incident, he offered a $50 reward for the return of an escaped slave – and ‘$10 for every 100 lashes a person will give to the amount of $300’”. 50 dollars then is worth 700 dollars today. Jackson did not properly represent equality, one of the cornerstones of the constitution offering that everyone is created equal. Because this was one of the larger things, he ‘accomplished’, Jackson made well known bad impressions to the rest of the world.

Again, Jackson did not represent equality. Throughout the process of Jackson’s campaign, he promised to give valuable political positions to key supporters. “On the night of his inauguration, office-seekers so crowded the White House that the party devolved into a near riot”, – stated by ‘Infamous Things Jackson Did That Proves He Was a Terrible President’ (Thane). Jackson gave treasured political spots to friends in the end. If the president is going to make such immature, secretive, and unequal decisions, why would we want him to represent the U.S. on the $20 dollar bill?

Gender in History of American Capitalism

Historians in the 1980s hoped that studies of categories of analysis would illuminate subjects that had previously been obscured. Joan Scott foregrounded gender in particular as one of these useful categories. ‘Gender’ has been widely substituted for ‘women’ in the labelling of this type of history which ultimately makes sense since the same cultural processes produced both ‘women’ and ‘men’. The historiography for this field is limited and fairly dated. It does not reflect cutting edge research that people are doing under the rubric of the history of capitalism. Most studies have taken for granted subjects that did not flow and could not be priced. Women as economic actors only have minor roles in the great transformations that took place in this period. They typically exist in networks with their actions determined by established relationships with men. Yet women and gender were essential to the emergence of capitalism. They were also shaped by nineteenth-century capitalism.

When using gender as a category of historical analysis, scholars have to treat is as something that is historically-contingent and must acknowledge its local and particular character. As Joan Scott asserted, the binary opposition of male and female must be rejected. In the history of capitalism, some of the most basic questions about gender relations are expressed in market relations. By using gender as a category of analysis, one thing stands out in particular. It is the way in which the story of the history of women in the United States is not one of gradual changes in gender relations and fights for greater equality. With the transition to industrial capitalism came a reversal of relations of equality in the nineteenth century. Patriarchy was actually strengthened and gender relations were hardened.

It is helpful to begin by questioning what a category of analysis actually is. It is subjective, something created by historians to assist them in finding, sorting, and evaluating pieces of evidence. Therefore, while categories of analysis seem both logical and necessary, we must appreciate that they will forever be contemporary. This does not prevent them from being valuable to historians. Indeed, they remind us of our responsibility as creators of meaning. However, we must recognize the way in which they mirror and depict our own perceptions of the world and avoid bestowing on them a sense of perpetuity and ubiquity. Categories are useful because they unscramble pieces of knowledge and enable historians to momentarily freeze the endless whirlwind of change in order to make observations. In contrast to Boydston’s assertion, as long as these categories are not disconnected from their historical context, they do not hinder our work.

Scholars in the nineteenth century could see that women and gender were central to the economic transformations that were taking place around them. When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels first started to write about capitalism in the mid-nineteenth century, they viewed gender relations and the family as a realm that would be radically transformed by capitalism. They saw a positive correlation between women’s lack of freedom and the rise of private property and class relations. The key basis behind this thinking was the notion that men wanted to ensure that their property would be cast down through their family lineages. Therefore, the broad institutions of patriarchy and male domination-controlled women’s fertility. Hence, Engels thought that when men had less property, they would not be troubled by these issues – they would be landless proletarians with nothing to pass down to their children. The lack of household property would mean the diminishing of patriarchy. Engels believed that the workplace as well as the home would be affected where the conditions of factory production would essentially lead to men and women both doing the same work – differences of ages and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. Thus, Engels and Marx imagined the transition from capitalism to socialism as a kind of liberating process that would actually lead to greater human equality.

Historians can uncover what actually happened by using gender as a category of analysis and examining what both women and men were doing in the American transition to capitalism. It is vital to appreciate that both farms and the wider economy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were very much organized around the household as a core unit. Households varied according to time and place, as did the gender relations that they encompassed. The family was the key element of the household and family economies were the key realm both of domestic production and of economic relations. We can start by thinking about the New England farm as a site of early pre-capitalist formations and about how farm production changed over time. There was a gendered division of labor on the farm; women were more often responsible for managing the domicile (cooking, preserving food, making textiles) while men were more often tending to field crops and livestock, getting firewood, and gathering food, for example. Indeed, the New England Farmer, a monthly journal dedicated to agriculture and horticulture, declared in 1858 its hope that women would never be seen in the field, or doing any other out-door work, unless in that of the cultivation of a flower garden. Hence, the roles described seem to represent what we tend to think of as gendered relations.

However, both men and women (and children) were required to work hard in order to keep the farm economy operating for subsistence and none of the work that was designated to either of the sexes was waged. Pre-industrial urban households, especially the poor ones, also relied upon pooled economic resources with all members of the family responsible for finding work, going out and selling things on the street, or for taking on work to do in the home. In the transition to capitalism phase, family farms started to produce more for the market and did not just focus on subsistence. They utilized mills to produce flour, made butter, speculated on land, and women started spinning and weaving, for example. Again, we can essentially see a relation of equality, since both men and women were producing for the market and receiving a price for their commodities that was solely dependent upon the type of goods that they were selling.

In the early nineteenth century, there was the rise of wage labor and the emergence of industrialization. Textile production grew from a kind of cottage industry that was based on outwork and performed in the home into something that was performed on great big looms in factories. We tend to think of the early wage worker as male, hence the industrial worker becomes gendered. However, in the United States and Britain, the early textile workers were very often female. Young women in particular were perceived as the ideal textile workers. Francis Lowell pioneered the employment of women in his mills as textile workers. These women lived in great dormitories and had extremely regimented lives. Thus, the early experience of industrialization was very much born by young women in the early nineteenth century. By 1840, women held over half of all manufacturing jobs in the United States and two-thirds of all manufacturing jobs in New England. We can see female wage earners right away, working as domestic servants, childminders, seamstresses, milliners. But it is the particular feature of the household that is crucial to remember. These female workers still put all of their earnings back into the household which typically enabled the entire family to stay on the farm. Hence, it appears that the domestic economy was not really disrupted by this early wage labor.

However, we can see a divergence in gender roles with the rise of industrialization. Men started to increasingly travel to market their crops and began to move away from the household into the cities. Farms were still operating but they became less like household projects and more like family-minus-men projects. With industrial labor came the emergence of cash earnings which resulted in a differential in what men and women were paid. Part of the reason for this is that in this period, both farmers and male industrial workers were placed under increasing financial pressure. Over time we can see that there was a decline in wage rates and an increase in the pace and intensity of work with longer hours. Hence, there was no time to do the normal subsistence activities that they had been able to do in the household before. In many occupations, especially in the textile industry, we see that workers’ incomes have begun to significantly outpace the reproductive costs of running households. For trade workers in New York City in the 1850s, the average annual wage was three hundred dollars, which historians estimate was roughly half of what a family of four needed to survive.

Scholars have concluded that domestic labor regimes were central to the emergence of industrial capitalism and the ability of men to do wage work. Therefore, rather than thinking about unpaid domestic work as being separate from paid wage work, we have to see one as supplementing the other in the mixed economy of the household. The nineteenth-century wage worker needed his clothes to be made, altered, and laundered, he required shelter and warmth, and potentially someone to provide childcare. Yet the laboring man tended to only make about a dollar a day which was not enough “for a man with a wife and family, to lay by a sufficiency to pay rent, buy fire wood, and eatables, through a long, sever winter”, according to an 1804 petition for public charity. So, it was the unpaid nature of domestic labor provided at the home that made a subsistent living possible, as well as the emergence of the ‘industrial army’. Women did try to commodify some of these domestic labors; the landlady was a key figure in the mid nineteenth century who took on borders herself. A wife’s input into the family economy in unpaid labor alone was double the cost of her maintenance. As a Baltimore magazine recommended in 1800, “Get married: a wife is cheaper than a house-keeper, her industry will assist you many ways”. Hence, we can see relations of profound dependency in this particular domestic formation that were very different to what they would have been even fifty years beforehand.

The more prosperous middle-class men who were working as clerks or attorneys would have earned enough to cover the expenses of a household but they would probably have been unable to save much money. However, again we see the added value of the uncompensated labor of the wife. A good housewife became a model of the best wife; she would go to the shops and find the best meat, or she would figure out how to economize in the household by repairing things, for instance. A thrift housewife could help save enough money that could then be invested in property, thus enabling a family to rise up the social ladder. Thus, a male wage laborer in the nineteenth century certainly would have wanted a wife. It is easier for us to see this in some ways today because we have so many two-earner families and, therefore, a huge reliance on maids, childcare, and food services. But this situation took a long time to come about. In the nineteenth century, a culture was constructed in which the ‘working woman’ became an oxymoron.

In this context, it is easy to understand why gender roles were hardened so much in the mid-nineteenth century. There was the emergence of the ideology of ‘separate spheres’. Women were seen as being more suited to the household and typically wanted to be domestic while men were meant to be out in public. The range of activities that women versus men were supposed to do in the household and public sphere became much narrower during this period. Even though women were also working as wage workers- in the mill, for instance- they still did not gain greater gender equality. In reality, therefore, circumstances were very different to what Marx and Engels had predicted. It was not the case that more gender equality resulted from the transition to capitalism, indeed it was quite the opposite. There was the emergence of much more severe ideologies of gender difference.

Another phenomenon that occurred in this period was that the domestic work that women had long been doing in the household increasingly came under fire. Women had been seeking more and more wage work to do inside the home, essentially trying to bring the factory inside the house. This was called piece work and including jobs such as cigar-making, tailoring, and cracking nuts. Children often collected the raw materials for their mothers that were distributed by factory owners. This kind of work allowed the family to commodify what they had already doing in the home and to earn extra money. Sewing machines were invented in the mid-nineteenth century and were fairly inexpensive, costing around fifty dollars, so they proliferated. Some women also started to give out pieces of work to their neighbors, hence it became a cottage industry of sorts. There were thousands and thousands of these small firms of people doing work in the home. However, there was increasing pressure from reformers to outlaw this domestic work, mainly because it degraded the male laborer’s wages. The American Federation of Labor declared that “if it was not for homework, the father would have to demand higher wages”. It was also almost impossible to unionize homework and standardize it so reformers argued that it was continuing to drag down standards in their industries. Campaigns against housework, such as those by the Cigar Makers’ Union and Tailors’ Union, were often led on the grounds of hygiene since homes were sometimes extremely unsanitary.

Thus, what does all this tell us about the history of capitalism and about gender? There is a great deal more to say about this question. The farm model does not reflect the experiences of slave families in the south or ranch families in the west, even though they still tended to be domestic economies. But it is clear that key concepts for understanding economic behavior, including household and gender, must be viewed critically by historians. As Boydston has argued, historians have too often taken for granted that whatever women were doing was ‘femininity’ and whatever men were doing was ‘masculinity’. We must appreciate the fact that all of these relations were variable and historically situated, that they were not the same everywhere over time. If we do this, then gender can be a useful category of analysis and we must accept that historians of capitalism do not yet have an alternative conceptual framework. An analysis of gender reveals the ways in which the domestic work that men and women were doing in households in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century turned into women’s work and went from being household labor to unpaid work by the mid-nineteenth century. We can see that the transition to capitalism was not just a process of men doing the work in the factory. It was the whole household that enabled the emergence of factory labor and employers to do things like drive down wages. It is also clear that capitalist relations of production and the particular ways in which they happened – in the United States at least – did not produce gender liberation. All that was solid did not melt in the air in the way that Engels had predicted. Legacies of gender relations from many centuries ago were remade and refashioned in ways that were quite unexpected.

Bibliography

1. Borris, Eileen. ‘Home To Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States’ (Cambridge, 1994)
2. Boydston, Jeanne. ‘Gender as a Question of Historical Analysis’, Gender & History, Vol. 20, No. 3 (2008), pp. 558-83.
3. Boydston, Jeanne. ‘The Woman Who Wasn’t There: Women’s Market Labor and the Transition to Capitalism in the United States’, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol.16, No. 2 (1996), pp. 183-206.
4. Boyer, Paul. ‘The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People’ (Boston, New York, 2008).
5. Brown, Heather. ‘Marx on Gender and the Family: A Critical Study’ (Leiden, 2012).
6. Brown, Kathleen. ‘Foul Bodies: Cleanliness in Early America’ (New Haven, CT, 2009), pp. 169–74.
7. Brown, Simon, Holbrook, Frederick, French, Henry (eds.). ‘Third Legislative Agricultural Meeting’, The New England Farmer; A Monthly Journal Devoted to Agriculture, Horticulture, and their Kindred Arts and Sciences, Vol. 10 (1858).
8. Colvin, John. ‘December 20, 1800’, The Baltimore Weekly Magazine, Complete in One Volume (Baltimore, 1801).
9. Glaisyer, Natasha. ‘Networking: Trade and Exchange in the Eighteenth-Century British Empire’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2 (2004), pp. 451–76.
10. Hartigan-O’Connor, Ellen. ‘Gender’s Value in the History of Capitalism’, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 36, No. 4 (2016), pp. 613-35.
11. Kessler-Harris, Alice. ‘Treating the Male as ‘Other’: Redefining the Parameters of Labor History’, Labor History, Vol. 34 (1993), pp. 190-204.
12. Miller, Maria. ‘The Needle’s Eye: Women and Work in the Age of Revolution’ (Amherst, MA, 2006).
13. Robinson, Harriet. ‘Loom and Spindle’ (New York, 1898).
14. Rockman, Seth. ‘Scraping By: Wage Labour, Slavery, and Survival in Early Baltimore’ (Baltimore, 2009).
15. Rockman, Seth. ‘Women’s Labor, Gender Ideology, and Working-Class Households in Early Republic Baltimore’, Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, Vol. 66 (1999), pp. 174-200.
16. Scott, Joan. ‘Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis’, American Historical Review, Vol. 91 (1986), pp. 1053-1075.
17. Scott, Joan. ‘Gender: Still a Useful Category of Analysis?’, Diogenes, Vol. 57, No. 1 (2010), pp. 7-14.
18. Sobel, Robert. ‘The Entrepreneurs: Explorations Within the American Business Tradition’ (Washington, 2000).
19. Sturtz, Linda. ‘Within Her Power: Propertied Women in Colonial Virginia’ (New York, 2002).
20. Vickery, Amanda. ‘The Gentleman’s Daughter: Women’s Lives in Georgian England’ (New Haven, CT, 2003).
21. ‘The Cigar Makers’ Strike’, New York Sun, 16 October 1877.
22. ‘Dissatisfied Cigar-Makers’, New York Tribune, 6 August 1877.

Minimum Wage to Liveable Wage Essay

In Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” he writes, “it is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms” (19). Here Swift describes the streets of Ireland. In his brief description, the reader can imagine what he sees as he walks down the streets of a town full of homeless people and beggar mothers with their children. Poverty is a continuous issue in numerous countries, with many causes and effects, this hardship sees no end.

In the 1960’s, United States President, Lyndon B. Johnson, declared a “war on poverty.” The War on Poverty was a social welfare legislation that was created with the intention of ending poverty once and for all. This movement gave opportunities for the creation of many different Acts. One act being the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. This Act provided citizens with job training and further education to encourage employment and abolish poverty. The Social Security Act of 1965 was another act that was influenced by the War on Poverty. This Act was the start of medical programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. These programs helped reduce out of pocket medical costs so qualifying citizens could pay little to nothing for the medical attention they receive.

One of the root causes of poverty is the lack of schooling in citizens. Most people who live in poverty lack basic education. People who do not receive basic levels of education often lose opportunities with jobs that pay wages above the minimum wage. Currently, minimum wage is barely enough to cover todays high cost of living. Minimum wage is supposed to be a “livable wage,” but twelve dollars an hour in California is not exactly enough to support an individual nor their families. According to Bank of America, “the average monthly cost for rented housing is 1,483 dollars, along with 618 dollars for monthly groceries.” They also calculated, “a monthly total for transportation bills is 756 dollars” (Better Money Habits). This includes a car payment, insurance, and gas. That is roughly 2,857 dollars for one month of necessities. With families who have children, the cost gets pushed up by 400 dollars a month of childcare. A parent with a minimum wage job, working 40 hours a week, only receives a monthly income of 1,920 dollars alone. That’s 937 dollars LESS than what it costs to take care of a family for the month.

Poverty develops poor living conditions for citizens and poor health in citizens. Mary Shaw, from University of Bristol Department of Medicine claims, “Millions of people came to be living in overcrowded, high-density, poorly ventilated, damp, unclean housing, with limited access to clean water and a haphazard system of waste and water disposal. (Housing and Public Health). The circumstances of these housing situations become very dangerous to the tenants, resulting into things such as physical illnesses. Friedrich Engels discovered “Diseases that thrived in such conditions included not only the notorious cholera, but also tuberculosis, diarrhea, and whooping cough (though it was perhaps cholera that, above all, captured the public and public health imagination). These unsafe living conditions often can result into serious illnesses for people who reside in these areas. Not to mention, for people living in extreme poverty, having access to quality housing can be nearly impossible. The Urban Institute states, “only 24 percent of the 19 million eligible households receive assistance” (Poethig et al.). Only few people who receive welfare have jobs that pay livable wages. Most still pay less than, leaving many people living below the poverty line.

In conclusion, the causes and effects of poverty have been a continuous issue since before President Lyndon B. Johnson inflicted the War on Poverty. The War on Poverty was a starting point to encourage the end of poverty, and although it has helped, it has not abolished it forever. If citizens were provided with education and were able to achieve a higher level of education, it would be easier for them to get high age jobs. The minimum wage paying jobs today are hardly enough for one to support and provide for their family. Physical health and mental health are also important effects of poverty on the people. The illnesses the face, both medically and mentally, are often caused by the poor living conditions they are stuck in, as well as the little to no government assistance.

Works Cited

1. Erika Poethig et al. Urban Institute: Housing assistance matters initiative, https://www.urban.org/features/housing-assistance-matters-initiative
2. Shaw, Mary. “Housing and Public Health.” Annuelereviews, 2004, 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123036
3. Bank of America. Better Money Habits. Spending: How Do You Stack Up?, https://bettermoneyhabits.bankofamerica.com/en/saving-budgeting/average-household-monthly-expenses
4. Swift, Jonathan. “A Modest Proposal.” The Broadview Anthology of Expository Prose, edited by Laura Buzzard et al., Broadview Publishers, Third Edition, pp.19-27.

Essay on Monopolies in the Gilded Age

The second industrial revolution came about in the mid-19th century, peaking in the year 1877, marking a significant turning point in history as progression and expansion had never been so rapid. The nation’s industrial excellence and railroad networks were expanding at a rate faster than any other country in the world, as it shook the very foundation of American culture. As communities expanded more to the West and took over territories to convert into states, America was perceived to be stronger than ever before in its still-brief history. For the many immigrating to the country, they expected the opportunity for a better life, and while there were many positions available due to rapid expansion, to the rate of approximately 4 million new jobs, it was not as glorious as it initially seemed. The second industrial revolution was a radical transition from agrarian to industrial which was the result of many compounding factors. Notably, the Homestead Act, along with advancements in transportation demanded significant development of American steel. This further increased the availability and affordability of raw materials, and natural resources such as coal, oil, and cotton. Although rapid advancements and the ensuing developments brought much-needed growth, they ultimately led to monopolies in a period now referred to as the Gilded Age. This period is characterized by the many consequences of these titans of industry in which exploitation of the working class significantly widened the gap between social classes, thus building the wage gap that affects socio-economic growth even today.

The formation of the extensive railroad network was crucial to the Industrial Revolution. The Homestead Act of 1862 stated that one could acquire 160 acres of public land. Requirements included improving the plot of land and cultivating it while owners paid for any expenses for reconstruction. This act ultimately led to massive land grants for railroads, which was the first step in the expansion of the railroad system. The railroad network became crucial to corporations that utilized this system to transport commodities. In turn, the level of organization between the jobs themselves had to increase to induce efficiency. There was a greater rate of governmental interference which meant there was more organization in the corporations themselves. Different levels of specialized skills were created, and this essentially initiated a multitude of career fields, such as administration, management, and communication. This efficiency increased commerce and integrated national markets allowing larger brands to arise since anything from raw goods to unbuilt houses was shipped through these advanced railroads. America shifted away from local trade and expanded its network towards new markets in distant cities. This new technology increased production but reduced prices since new competitive markets were rising, which established a better standard of living.

This played a huge role in linking distant communities together. Although economically these corporations were doing exceedingly well, they were not treating their employees as such. Most employees worked 60-hour weeks with no pension and very little pay. One worker stated that he was being paid ninety cents a day and compared his children to wolves, scavenging for food because there was never enough to eat, (Gorn, 25). It was an endless cycle of hunger and homelessness because of low wages and inhumane working conditions. Employees did not receive injury compensation either. To put this in perspective, America had one of the highest rates of workers dying on the job and big business owners did not prioritize the health of their employees as they were replaceable. Factories were saturated with dust and dirt with little to no windows and so this resulted in workers inhaling that air. Conditions were horrible and unsanitary, which only catalyzed the spread of sicknesses such as ‘black lung’ because of the accumulation of inhaling coal dust after many years. Many left the job disabled and injured because of how dangerous the jobs were. A song called Drill, Ye Tarriers Drill, written during this period by Irish workers, vocalized the Irish working on an iron mill and how a premature blast went off killing a worker. From the satirical and sarcastic tone of the song, it was played off very nonchalantly and employees continued to work because it was not perceived as shocking news. Workers knew it was very common and although it was known it was dangerous and unsafe, they needed to make a living. The song constantly repeats ‘Drill, ye tarrier drill’ to emphasize that life was centered around work and only to receive, ‘sugar in your tay (tea).’ This was not the life that immigrants envisioned in America- wages that hardly provided a living, and jobs that jeopardized their lives.

In Andrew Carnegie’s Steel Company, the workers felt the same terror and exhaustion and ultimately organized the Homestead Strike. The strike was at its climax in Pittsburgh in 1982 between Carnegie and his workers in Homestead. Carnegie had decided to cut wages in half due to the price of steel becoming cheaper. This was part of the vertical integration notion in which Carnegie would own railroads and mines that produced the raw materials needed for the steel company. People were overworked with such little pay, especially women who were paid half as much as men. Also working extremely dangerous jobs in steel companies and cotton mills were children. The working class decided to voice their concerns and demanded a renegotiation of the contract, asking for better pay. What was supposed to be a non-violent protest, turned very violent quickly as a few workers and private agents called the Pinkertons, that Carnegie hired, died. The strike clarified that point at this point in history, the divide between the working class and big corporations was greater than ever (Gorn, 27). The Pinkertons were fighting against nearly the entire town which caused them to eventually surrender. Workers believed this was a win on their end, however, matters became worse, and instead, the state militia gained management and controlled wages which were now even lower than what Carnegie had proposed. The government essentially sided with large corporations instead of the people due to the profit they had on the economy and acted the same as corporations did. The gap between the working class and the rich was larger than ever and it felt like every man for himself. Workers had no choice but to work in these factories because farms and small local businesses weren’t as common after industrialization. Families even had their children working in these factories and mills due to the lack of education available to children. In 1908, there was a photo of children taken climbing on top of machinery to fix broken threads, since they were so small (Schaller, 594). As seen in the picture, these children were barefoot and wearing shorts. Their bodies were unprotected, and they were submitting their selves to danger. The combination of all these factors is what eventually led to, what was referred to as the Gilded Age. To foreigners, America seemed like a wealth machine, which it was, but only for the ones in charge of the huge monopolies formed. The rest of the country was struggling to make a living.

This brings up the next important point that the Industrial Revolution was catalyzed by different individuals coming from humble backgrounds but taking charge of a certain commodity such as Andrew Carnegie and his kingdom of steel, or Rockefeller and his oil monopoly. When workers created Unions to fight back against these large corporations, they were not successful because companies could always replace them with other workers who needed the money. It was not ideal for them to unionize and fight back because the government and corporations were more powerful. The government was successful, but the individuals who owned these monopolies, such as Carnegie and Rockefeller, were even more successful. The rise of monopolies led to the catalyzation of the Industrial Revolution. Although it brought profit to the government, in the eyes of the working class, monopolies were unwanted. Corporations, being a monopoly, were able to take control of most aspects of the economy and corrupt the nation, because of all the power and success they had in making money for themselves by any means necessary, even if that meant hurting their workers. On page 584 of American Horizons, Rockefeller is seen sitting on a barrel that states Standard Oil Monopoly with multiple bags of cash underneath him while he holds a globe that has ‘the world’ written on it, while child laborers are in the back (Schaller, 584). Rockefeller and these big businessmen were just the face of these monopolies but never got their hands dirty and worked the dangerous conditions these workers dealt with. This is supported by another picture (Gorn, 28) drawn up in the newspaper in 1874, of a large man stepping all over these workers who were portrayed as very small, as he holds a stick that says capital. The face of this man is the face of a railroad which was just another example of another monopoly with little care to their workers and their health. The formation of monopolies led to the rise of capitalism which essentially created competition and therefore cheaper prices for goods, however, the working class was making very little as is and it was not enough.

This form of business became known as a Laissez-Faire economy in which the government did not have much input or any interference with businesses. This happened after the Anti-Sherman Trust Act was passed which had the intention of breaking up large monopolies but instead, loopholes were found, and the interpretation varied within the court. It was ruled that the government could regulate monopolies within interstate commerce however many were not and so not much was changed. This was when Laissez-faire capitalism emerged and played a role in the Industrial Revolution, leading to booms and busts. For those with money, they don’t feel the impact as much as the workers working low wages barely surviving.

Industrialization was such an important period in American history due to the vast changes made in American economics, trade, capitalism, and labor. Natural resources in the west, extensive coal fields, steel, the steam engine, and so many more factors all played important roles in the advancement of industrialization. Advancements in technology such as the railroad and steam engine connected parts of the country that had been unable to access before. The Industrial Revolution also led to a mass consumption culture that defined the American way of life allowing extreme power to corporations with monopolies, however eventually harming the working class and dividing the rich and the poor. It also caused many sicknesses and unsafe working conditions. What seemed a country dominated by wealth, was distributed by only a few rich men, and the rest experienced the Gilded Age.

Essay on Direct Primaries Progressive Era

From the 1870s to the 1890s, the United States entered a period of rapid industrialization. There was a shift from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy and many Americans began to move to urban areas. Mark Twain called this period the Gilded Age and criticized the era as a time of greed and political corruption. While there were millions of factory workers, the wealthy entrepreneurs who owned the factories represented a tiny fraction of Americans. The few wealthy controlled most of the wealth in the United States during this time.

Laissez-faire ideology influenced many aspects of politics, society, and economics in the Gilded Age. This ideology curbed corruption in government, which ran rampant during the Gilded Age. Politicians spent more time distributing government jobs to their supporters, managing urban political machines, and enriching themselves than dealing with important policy issues and this hit the workers and the farmers the hardest.

It’s perhaps not surprising that in this era of ineffective government, one of the most successful third-party movements in US history emerged. The People’s Party, or the Populists, reached national prominence in the 1890s on a platform of policies aimed at reining in big business and helping struggling farmers. Rich people lobbied and spent freely to gain support for favorable tariff legislation and business-friendly monetary policy. Their efforts were countered vigorously by ever-growing progressive groups opposed to tight money and high tariffs that raised the cost of consumer goods. Civil service reform was a widespread reaction to the rampant political corruption of the era.

The little people—farmers, laborers, small businessmen—were left out of the political equation except at the local machine level. At the city level, they skimmed money from businesses, some kept it for themselves, and some distributed it to the poor. To finance their activities and election campaigns, bosses exchanged favors for votes and money. Power over the local government enabled machines to control the awarding of public contracts, the granting of utility and streetcar franchises, and the distribution of city jobs. The recipients were expected to repay with money or votes. It is worth noting that the political machines were really important to the immigrants because they were provided many necessities by these machines in exchange for their votes. The immigrants did not care that much at the time about corruption, since all they needed was food, clothing, and money. However, machines were awarding more contracts than the budget could afford. Consequently, they raised taxes, which was not welcomed by the working class.

When President James A. Garfield was assassinated four months after assuming office, people were shocked to discover that the assassin was a disgruntled office seeker who had been trying to get a position in Garfield’s administration. Garfield had shown great promise before his assassination, and support for civil service reform grew significantly. In addition, as society grew more complex during the Industrial, the ability to perform routine tasks under government employment also became increasingly complex. It was apparent for these reasons that a professional civil service was required, with employees who would no longer be subject to the political winds. The result of the reform agitation was the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883. The act in effect ended the spoils system by classifying certain jobs, which meant they could not be awarded based on patronage. In addition, the United States Civil Service Commission was established to construct a system under which people would be hired on merit rather than based on political connections.

Additionally, during the Progressive Era, we have the introduction of the direct primary, the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. In a direct primary voters elect delegates who choose the party’s candidates at a nominating convention. Initiative is a power reserved to the voters to propose legislation, by petition that would enact, amend, or repeal a City Charter or Code provision. Referendum is a power reserved to the voters that allows the voters, by petition, to demand the reconsideration and repeal of any legislative action of the City Council. Recall is a power reserved to the voters that allows the voters, by petition, to demand the removal of an elected official. On top of that, we also have the Seventeenth Amendment (1911) to the United States Constitution which established the popular election of United States senators by the people of the states.

At the national level, only a handful of extremely rich individuals exercised a powerful influence over Congress. All the presidents from Abraham Lincoln’s death until Teddy Roosevelt’s accession were notably weak. Presidents and cabinet members were hounded by job seekers and political machine operatives seeking to collect on campaign promises made. The assassination of President Garfield is proof of this. Weakened presidents were more susceptible to support various legislators’ and lobbyists’ agendas, as they owed tremendous favors to their political parties. As a result of this relationship, the rare pieces of legislation passed were largely responses to the desires of businessmen and industrialists whose support helped build politicians’ careers.

The main source of corruption involved Railroads. The only way to recover from the War was to incentivize economic growth. To do this, the country needed Railroads and for this reason, the government started lowering taxes and giving aid to the Railroads. This Railroads turn out to be corrupt. To get the right to build the Railroads, they start bribing the legislators. On top of that, as rail networks spread, so did competition. On noncompetitive routes, railroads made pricing disproportionate to distance as they boosted charges as high as possible to compensate for unprofitably low rates on competitive routes. In particular, people who depended on railways for business purposes were hurt by the fact that, at least on the local level, railroads had a monopoly on the transportation of goods from producer to market. Shipping rates were uneven and often unfair, especially on lines where no competing systems were available. In addition, large corporations such as Carnegie Steel or Standard Oil were able to pressure rail companies to give them favorable rates and rebates. Farmers in particular were subject to the will of the railroad operators

As a result of those questionable practices and the failure of states to regulate railroads, Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act in 1877. The law prohibited pools, rebates, and long-haul/short-haul rate discrimination, and it created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to investigate railroad rate-making. The commission faced a lot of resilience from the railroads as corrupt courts usually ruled in favor of the companies when cases were prosecuted.

Another instance where the tendency of Congress to serve the interest of the rich rather than the people was put on full display was the Tariff Policy. Congress had created tariffs that dramatically raised taxes on imported goods to protect American manufacturers and agricultural products from foreign competition. However, tariffs quickly became a tool by which special interests could enhance their profits. Manufacturers and their congressional allies firmly controlled tariff policy. This damaged the common people who could not buy cheaper products and farmers whose crops were not protected.

This topic was not the primary focus of any President until Woodrow Wilson. Wilson and other members of the Democratic Party had long seen high tariffs as equivalent to unfair taxes on consumers, and tariff reduction was President Wilson’s priority upon taking office. The Revenue Act of 1913 re-established a federal income tax in the United States and substantially lowered tariff rates.

However, the most influential factor during these tense times, when the country was led by one corrupt government after another, was the monopolies. During the last half of the 19th century, it became apparent that large businesses needed to be regulated. As a result, the tradition of laissez-faire was not only impractical but dangerous.

The first major break with the concept of laissez-faire came with the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. Businesses were prohibited from using monopolistic practices or acting in restraint of trade and taking unfair advantage of competitors. Like the Interstate Commerce Act, the Sherman Act had to be modified and tightened by later legislation, but the mere passage of the act demonstrated that the age of unbridled corporate excess was finally coming to an end.

The Hepburn Act is a 1906 United States federal law that strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) giving it greater authority to set railroad freight rates and power to set maximum railroad rates and extend its jurisdiction.

The Clayton Antitrust Act, which Congress passed in 1914, prohibited some anti-competitive business practices, such as price-fixing and interlocking directorates (in which the same people sit on the executive boards of competing companies in one industry). This act complemented the Federal Trade Commission law passed the same year, which created a new government board appointed by the president and empowered to investigate and publicize corrupt, unfair, or anti-competitive business practices.

5 Paragraph Essay on Westward Expansion

In the United States, the Civil War ended, leading to massive sectional disputes throughout the Reconstruction era, before the golden age took over in the form of rapid industrialization. This included the expansion of industry, such as the construction of railways, and the enactment of Jim Crow legislation, such as poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests, during Reconstruction. Following that, the United States underwent a surge in industrialization, with the emergence of monopolies and trusts, a new social hierarchy, and the introduction of new work possibilities due to increasing labor demand, enabling mass migration to occur by the end of the nineteenth century. However, the involvement in expanding westward or westward expansion, the push of industrialization, and the increasing gap between the rich and poor due to Laissez-Faire capitalism, trusts, and monopolies, which enhanced the demand for jobs, all played a prominent part in reimagining American migration patterns from 1865 to 1898, all of which played a significant role in reimagining American migration patterns.

The desire to go westward was a frequent interest or ambition among late-nineteenth-century settlers. The Homestead Act, for example, facilitated migration from the federal government to the western states. Many individuals felt that there would be resources to dwell there and that capturing and occupying that region in the United States was a God-given mission. They also relocated to work in the cattle sector and build their business. Another example is the term ‘Manifest Destiny,’ which describes the United States’ determination to expand westward. Americans utilized Manifest Destiny to justify and rationalize their westward expansion across the United States. Due to the California gold rush of 1844 and the construction of transcontinental railroads, many people traveled west for mining and farming. The transcontinental railroad aided in the efficient conveyance of more products. This contributed to reshaping American migratory patterns to a large extent since westward development helped draw Americans and many others and change the US economy world in general.

While the goal of westward expansion is one aspect, the quick push of industry that transformed America during this period also affected migration trends from 1865 to 1898. During Reconstruction, for example, the new ‘South’ was developed with the notion that King Cotton had a detrimental influence on the Southern economy during the Civil War. As a result, the South needed more significant economic growth to match the North. Henry Grady is a well-known advocate for transforming the new South from an agricultural to a primarily industrialized civilization. To restore the South during rebuilding, Henry Grady suggested that the South create railways and industry. Another factor that accelerated industrialization was urbanization or the expansion of cities. Cities’ expansion resulted in the establishment of industries and businesses and the construction of larger structures such as skyscrapers.

Changes in transportation occurred due to urbanization, particularly the rise of railways originating with Cornelius Vanderbilt. This resulted in an influx of immigrants drawn to the United States by the push and pull dynamics. A push factor is the desire to flee Europe’s wars and poverty, while a pull factor is freedom and the hunt for work. This resulted in rapid industrialization in America, which reshaped American migratory patterns to a large extent.

Finally, from 1865 to 1898, an essential element that impacted migratory trends was the rising demand for and availability of employment in adjacent cities. As a result, thanks to laissez-faire capitalism and social Darwinism, the gap between the affluent and the poor has widened. During this period, laissez-faire capitalism resulted in monopolies, which created a need for workers. This resulted in an increase in employment, which led to migration. Labor conflicts between employees and employers would lead to the formation of labor unions. Labor unions are founded to go on strike and demonstrate equitable pay for all workers. The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 was one of the labor conflicts. During this strike, workers at a railroad went on strike at the same time against a wage reduction. Before Reconstruction, most of the economy was based on agriculture. However, creating occupations in cities provided employment prospects for thousands of people, enticing immigrants and resulting in a significant increase in American migration patterns across the country in the late nineteenth century.

Essay on What Did It Mean to Be an American in the 1800s

The late 1800s was the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the most momentous and dynamic time in American history. Industrial cities and towns grew significantly because of the migration of farmers and families who were searching for work in factories and mines. The resettlement of the people would help start a new development and retransformation of the country for generations to come. It was a time of reform, in which many Americans wanted to regulate corporations and manipulate the changes that were taking place all around. The people came to America to be free and to make a life as they pleased but it seemed that it was all corrupt and they felt enslaved yet again.

These factories and mines were dangerous, dirty, and unforgiving, and the working conditions that the working-class people faced were gruesome. They would work 12-16-hour shifts, were paid low wages that barely covered the cost of living, and had little to no worker rights. Since the government had little to no role in the workplace, the wealthy owners took advantage and acted in the way they wanted. Workers were required to work long shifts of 16-hour days in grueling conditions, it was repetitive, tiring, and excruciatingly hot. Often workers were denied breaks, if they took a break anyway, they would deduct it from their pay. Many factory workers had to work in tight spaces with poor lighting, certain machines were left unguarded because of the unsafe working conditions many became injured and sometimes died. Such as the Triangle Shirtwaist fire that injured 71 and killed 146 men and women. The doors to the factory were chained so that the workers would not take unauthorized breaks and when the fire started because of poor conditions, they could not get out. This was not the first incident, this happened the year before and the Triangle workers had gone on strike. The strikers demanded union recognition, higher wages, and better safety in the workplace, but the factory owners decided not to comply, they stated that the viable fire escape and unlocked doors were too expensive, instead, the police were called to break up the strike and there was no change for the people. On top of the horrendous working conditions, they were paid small amounts and struggled to survive. The amount they paid for rent took most of their money which did not leave them much to buy food, clothes, and luxury items. At times, workers were late, and their pay would be deducted for taking a break. The amount of pay was so poor that they would need their children to work as well, owners were keen to hire the children; it was cheap labor, and they could be used for certain jobs due to their size. Due to the government practicing “laissez-faire,” wealthy entrepreneurs were able to take advantage of these workers. The workers had no rights to protect or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work preventing children from working and exposing them to dangerous working conditions.

Business owners were taking full advantage of the opportunity to help contribute to the significant era of the industry. They were in the business to make money and wanted to use the cheapest labor they could find. Factories were being built and businesses needed workers. With so many people willing to work, employers would set wages as low as they wanted because people were willing to do work since they were going to get paid. Business owners knew that if the workers did not want to work or became injured, they could be replaced easily, the line of people was long, and those people were willing to work. People worked for necessity and were willing to do the work, they had the grit to do so; although some were strong-minded and decided to take a stand and fight, others were not; they did not want to join the fight. The workers knew the way they were being treated was inhumane and something needed to be done. It only took a small few to start the strike, with persistence they were able to gather most of the workers to join the strike. Regardless of the threats, gang lynching, and police beatings; they did not give up until there was a change in the way the workers were treated. Throughout the years some brave people were leaders such as Agnes Nestor in the 1890’s, who was a part of a strike and helped other women to join, she also became involved with a union group and gathered more women to join. The courageous speaker Rose Schneiderman, on April 2, 1911, spoke for the people who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

American life was not the same and numerous challenges occurred, but a countless number of Americans were willing to tackle the problems and come up with solutions. They pushed together and accomplished a turning point for many Americans. The Progressive Era unified the relationship between politics, culture, and society by eliminating the issues that caused unsettling situations, that cause chaos, and refused to give efficiency and justice.