Economic, Social, and Political Reforms by the Government during the Progressive Era

At the beginning of the twentieth century there was a great progressive movement. This time period is referred to as the Progressive Era. This era came about as a response to the great economic, social, and political inequality that was present in the United States. Many Americans became aware of this great poverty, due to, poverty pornography that exposed the horrors of the inequalities present in American society. These people that engaged in this poverty pornography were known as muckrakers. This brought in the Progressive Era which advocated for many necessary reforms in the governmental system. The government at the federal and state levels played a huge role in reforms economically, socially, and politically in the early twentieth century through the many laws passed to reform the horrible working conditions in the food industry, the efforts to end child labor and institute minimum wage and maximum work hour laws, and the efforts of the Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follete to help take the lead on serious political issues.

Many large businesses specifically the food industry was in need of economic reform. Meat packing factories in Chicago, in particular, greatly needed changing. Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, an example of a muckraker, wrote about the horrors of the preparation that went involved into preparing the meat and the horrible working conditions that workers were exposed to in the factories. Governmental reforms surely did come in the form of regulations. Many were laws were passed by the federal governmental that required meat and working conditions to be inspected.

Child labor was in fact at large in America. Children often along with their parents worked long toilsome hours. Specifically, at the state levels many reforms, in the form of laws, were passed. This helped end abusive child labor many young children experienced. Workers also succeeded in receiving a decrease in work hours and an increase in wages through states helping to institute minimum wage and maximum work hour laws. President Roosevelt also brought about reform by negotiating with miners and mine owners to help bring shorter work days and a 10 percent wage increase.

Wisconsin was a great example of early political reforms in the beginning of the twentieth century. Specifically, at the state level, Senator Robert La Follete helped Wisconsin lead through example itself and other states through enormous political reforms. Arguably, one of the most notable of these reforms was giving the people the power to decide who their party’s nominee for political offices would be through direct election instead of corrupt party leaders picking the nominees themselves. Wisconsin also took the lead on essentially limiting how the amount political officials could spend for their own campaigns.

To conclude, the government helped bring about a multitude of political, social, and economic reforms. The government at the federal helped bring about economic reforms through passing laws that regulated the food industry. The state governments helped ban child labor, bring about a minimum wage, and put forth maximum working hours and Theodore Roosevelt at a federal level helped set the stage for reform with mining companies. The state government in Wisconsin helped bring political reform to America through example and the efforts of their Senator Robert La Follete. By and large, the government helped bring about many economic, social, and political reforms.

Was the United States Justified in Going to War against Spain in 1898?

During the mid and late 1800s imperialism was alive and well in the United States. It was not enough for America to have acquired massive tracts of land throughout the late 1800s, such as Alaska and Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The idea of imperialism and the Monroe Doctrine called for more land and limited European intervention in the Western Hemisphere. Ultimately the imperialistic eye of the United States had to eventually turn to Cuba, an area under Spain’s control that represented tremendous opportunity to fuel the growing imperialist machine that was America. The Monroe Doctrine could not tolerate Spanish control over Cuba, forbidding European intervention in the Western Hemisphere. This factor, coupled with the United States’ desire to control Cuban resources, such as sugar, would ultimately lead to the Spanish-American War over the strategic island of Cuba. The United States was not justified in going to war against Spain, not only because American diplomats were already negotiating with Spain before the war in order to achieve a peaceful settlement, but furthermore, the reasons the United States had for going to war were illegitimate the dubious Monroe doctrine pushed the United States to regard all European presence in the Western Hemisphere as illegitimate; Spain’s mistreatment of the Cuban population was an insufficient reason for war; and the harm to American business interests related to Cuba had less to do with riots against Spanish control and more to do with protective tariffs on sugar imposed by the United States.

The American President of the time of war, McKinley, wished for more American land. The United States was in no way justified in going to war with Spain politically because its true motivations were simply to destroy Spain’s presence in the Western Hemisphere and develop an even more hegemonic power in the Western world. Like many other presidents, McKinley wanted to implement the Monroe Doctrine. McKinley and Congress began the Spanish-American War simply to gain popularity with the American public, for they were sympathetic towards the idea of war, and to help the United States gain control of the Western world. Adherence to the Monroe Doctrine in no way justified going to war with Spain, as Spain had nothing to due with motivating the conflict politically and it began simply due to hegemonic ideals held by political officials.

Another group that played a large part in the war was the businessmen of America. Their businesses were being greatly affected by the Cuban riots to destroy Spain’s oppression over them, in particular the halt to sugar production. This economic unrest was not a justifiable reason to begin the war because most of the economic difficulties faced by U.S. businesses came directly from the protective tariff the United States government had implemented. This tariff made it more difficult for Cubans to gain a greater market share of the sugar industry. Spain was in no way responsible for the United States instituting the tariff and therefore should not have been attacked.

While the United States claimed that Spain’s cruelty towards the Cubans presented a moral reason for going to war, on closer examination this reasoning falls apart. It is true that Spain was treating Cubans exceptionally harshly. However, after the United States took control of Cuba, it did little to ameliorate the treatment of the Cubans, although before and during the war the U.S. government had promised the American public and Spain that it would. The true drive for taking Cuba away from Spanish control was to guarantee implementing the Monroe Doctrine ensuring America’s hegemonic expansion. America’s true motivations can be seen in the Platt Amendment truly giving any freedom the United States had promised Cuba into the hands of the American government. The fact was that America was not ridding Cuba of an oppressor. Instead, America was just replacing the Spanish oppressor with itself.

Diplomatically, there can be no argument made as to why the United States could be justified in going to war with Spain. While many Americans were still fuming in anger over the destruction of the battleship Maine, which American public opinion blamed on the Spanish, American diplomats were doing their best to resolve American tensions with Spain. The diplomats were able to make much progress in their discussions with Spain, including getting Spain to agree to an armistice with the Cuban rebels and to end the re-education camps. Sadly, the American public was too caught up in the explosion of the Maine to notice these diplomatic achievements.

To conclude, the United States had no justification for beginning the Spanish-American war, for the real motivations for the conflict were not legitimate and only represented the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine and the quest for American imperialism and hegemonic expansion. Politically, America’s governmental officials’ only goals were to further itself in popularity with the American public and to gain control over all the Western Hemisphere. Economically, American industries failed to confront the real source of their problems, namely, the protectionists tariff, assuming that their Cuba-related business woes were all Spain’s fault. Morally, the United States was just as bad as Spain when it came to the treatment of Cubans and it should certainly not be depicted that America was rescuing Cubans from horrid Spanish control. Diplomatically, Americans were already making progress in achieving peace with Spain without war, so there was nothing to be gained from going to war except for furthering America’s hegemonic dominance in the Western world.

Evaluate the response of government to the plight of America’s farmers and laborers in the late nineteenth century.

By the end of the Civil War American industries were experiencing tremendous growth. America was becoming more and more urbanized, due to an increase in population, and required much work from the farmers to feed the increasing population. Many inventions were created that greatly increased the production of farmers such as the McCormick Reaper and steel plows. Sadly, for the farmers they were still experiencing hard times financially even though their production had risen tremendously, and this resulted in many farmers living and poverty and being foreclosed upon. Multiple factors contributed to farmer’s poor profits, most notably high railroad shipping prices for agricultural goods, and the use of grain elevators. Farmers and laborers as well were not pleased with their predicament, quickly organized and created the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry and many other groups like the populist, with common goals of improving the lives of farmers and laborers. The response of government to the plight of America’s farmers and laborers in the late nineteenth century was exceptionally positive for the farmers and laborers through many Supreme Court rulings directly benefiting farmers and laborers, a multitude of Granger laws past in which farmers were the main benefactors, and the rise of the populist party, a group which consisted of many farmers and laborers with progressive ideals.

There were a few noteworthy Supreme Court cases which affected farmers and laborers positively. These include the rulings of Munn v. Illinois and Peik v. the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. The case Munn v. Illinois, was a large victory for the farmers for it ruled that when property was being “devoted to public use” that states had the option of putting restrictions on railroad companies for the benefits of the people. Pretty much the people were the farmers. This ruling helped reduce the high prices framers were paying to get their crops sent to consumers. The ruling Peik v. the Chicago and Northwestern railway was also a great victory for the farmers for it assumed that the Granger laws were completely valid and didn’t infringe upon the federal governments right restrict interstate trade and commerce. This allowed the Granger laws to continue which helped farmers enormously.

Granger laws are held in common with the group the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry. These laws refer to laws passed by people that were in either in the group or sympathized with the group. The National Granger of Patrons of Husbandry were made to help farmers build closer bonds with one another and eventually moved to politics and had many members elected to political offices. There these “Grangers” passed multiple laws that directly benefited farmers and laborers throughout America. These laws did a tremendous job of dealing with the unfair treatment many farmers were experiencing.

The Populist Party, although had many other aspects of their platform, was centered on helping farmers and laborers. The Populist Party was a huge supporter of labor unions, which can be seen in the fact that they were against the idea of private security groups, groups not a part of the government, being used to break up strikes. The party was for labor reform in it fought for an eight hour work day for workers. The Populists consisted of and supported farmers in that they felt all federally granted land to railroad companies should be given to the public, the public often referring to farmers. The Populist Party greatly assisted the plight of farmers and laborers.

To conclude, the response of the government to the farmers and laborers was extremely beneficial for farmers and laborers. Farmers and laborers were able to achieve many Supreme Court rulings that were directly in their favor. Farmers and laborers were also able to organize and become a part of the political process by passing Granger laws. Lastly, farmers and laborers helped create and become the platform of the Populist Party which helped fight against their abuses. Farmers and laborers succeeded significantly in achieving a positive response for their efforts from the government.