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.

Trade unions were as unsuccessful as possible due to failure to confront the capitalist system causing all their problems

At the end of the Civil War the United States went through a period of incredible economic growth. This period is often referred to as the Industrial Era where capitalist industries went through extreme expansion by great increases in production of many commodities such as steel, petroleum, coal, and wheat and corn due to advancements in agricultural machinery. There were many groups with dissimilar views on how this new industrial America. There were multiple trade unions which fought for the rights of workers and asked for government aid for the people in poverty in America. In spite of these groups there were many capitalist corporations that supported the horrid theory of Social Darwinism that implied the government shouldn’t be involved in the capitalist system and should not give aid to those who were in need. The only groups that actually posed any threat to overthrowing the wretched system were radicals like Eugene Debs who realized the truth that capitalism was in fact exploitive and would do anything in order to get achieve capital and profits. The efforts of trade union movement to reform the horrible and corrupt capitalist system were futile because in their efforts to reform the system they allowed capitalism’s continued existence and under the logic of there is no good capitalism they completely failed because in their attempt to reform the system it only ended up furthering the system through not confronting Social Darwinism directly, not realizing the futileness of the American Dream under a capitalist system, and attempting to go through the government to create a slightly less unkind system of capitalism which ultimately failed and only furthered the system for it is impossible to solve within the system.

Social Darwinism is one of the most controversial ways to look at the world. Social Darwinism is a tool of capitalism to justify their exploitation of humans and resources which will lead to ecological destruction and genocide and was responsible for American slavery. By the efforts of the trade unions to make a faintly less offensive form of capitalism they only furthered the system because capitalism will always feed off of slight “improvements” to the system and use them for its own advantage to further please the people at the top of the system in their drive for profits and accumulation. The multiple trade unions failed to stop the horrible philosophy of Social Darwinism because it is too deeply rooted in capitalists justification for horrible acts like American slavery, a system directly caused by a drive for profits because slave labor was economically beneficial. The attempts of slave union groups to work with capitalism only led to the furthering of the Social Darwinism favoring the protection of the rich and wealthy and only increasing the rapid accumulation a select few profit from.

Capitalism also profited from the ludicrous idea of the “American Dream.” This dream simply stated that with hard work and self determination in America anyone can reach the top. This theory foolhardy and was and is a tool of capitalism to keep its workers in check and avoid any possible way to destroy the system. The trade unions tried to bring more rights to workers by making simple renovations to capitalism and were not successful in addressing capitalism directly which actually ended up making capitalism more powerful. The American Dream helped capitalism by spreading the lie that with hard work anyone could do whatever they wanted. This is very conveniently worded for capitalists. If a worker asks why his life has not gotten any better in his 12 hour work day the capitalist profiteers may tell him make it a 14 hour work week and you may get somewhere. The fact of the matter is capitalism favors only a select few and requires everyone else to be at the bottom of the system in poverty working hard for these select few. The stupidity of the American Dream is tremendous for it is unattainable in the capitalist system.

Trade unions failed to realize that going through the federal government was futile. One of the horrible traits of corporations in a capitalist economic system is that they also take control of the political system. It only makes sense then that trade unions would fail to accomplish anything by going through the government for it would be too deeply rooted in capitalist corporations. An example of how the corporations held control of the American government is the many protective tariffs the United States government implemented that protected these corporations and the fact they left large corporations untaxed. This shows how Social Darwinism is only used for capitalists when it comes to helping the poor. They look the other way when the government helps them, but quickly say it violates the theory of Social Darwinism when the government does anything helping the poor. Trade unions failed to realize the stranglehold capitalism had on them and the government and that it was pointless to make minor reforms.

To conclude, the trade union movement was not successful in during the post-Civil War era because it did not confront the capitalist system that began to grow rapidly. The only possible way to destroy the corrupt capitalist system was a full on rejection a few individuals such as Eugene Debs supported. A horrible evil that is a tremendous part of the capitalist system was Social Darwinism which was not confronted by a failure to destroy the capitalist system. Trade unions also didn’t realize that the American Dream was a tool of the capitalist system in order to make their laborers work harder in their drive for profits. Trade unions made another mistake by thinking that they could use the government to help solve their problems, which was a failure because the corporations had far too much influence on the government, which actually contradicted their whole Social Darwinist argument because they were greatly involved with the American government. The only way capitalism can be destroyed is by all out rejection of the system because reforming the system can only result in complete failure by furthering the system.

To What Extent did the Compact Theory cause the Civil War?

Well I didn't plagerize on this essay, but from know on I will just read ahead of time and write the essay without outside materials.

During the early nineteenth century, the early years of the American government, there were large conflicts as to how strong the federal government would be in relation to the states’ government. A strong federal group in the early American democracy was the Hamiltonians. Followers of this group consisted of federalists who were strong advocates for the Contract Theory, where the people not the states held power over the government. In opposition to the Contract Theory was the Jeffersonians. The Jeffersonians advocated for the Compact Theory, which felt that the states held power over the federal government and should be allowed to declare any laws of the federal government null and void if they felt they were unconstitutional. Over history there were a multitude of efforts by both the Compact and Contract Theorists to implement their beliefs into the youthful American government. The Compact Theory would later be applied in the Civil War by the states’ feeling they had the right to secede from the federal government. The Civil war was remarkably caused by the efforts of the Compact Theorists through multiple labors for the implementation of states’ rights, most notably, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, John C. Calhoun’s protests of the “Tariff of Abominations” with the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, and South Carolina’s response to the tariff of 1832, altogether ultimately leading to secession.

One of the first great states’ rights efforts by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both Compact Theorists, were the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions passed in 1798. These two resolutions helped bring up the idea of nullification, a huge component of the Compact Theory, by individual states refusing to comply with federal laws, specifically, the Alien and Sedition Acts. These resolutions were an enormous breakthrough for states’ rights advocates because it assisted the idea the states could declare certain federal laws null and void. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, although were not directly made to affect the Civil War, were a large factor in inciting the Civil War because they helped bring into play the Compact Theory which would later bring the secession of Southern states.

A tremendous states’ rights advocate was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. The federal government had passed a protective tariff for Northern industries, known as the “Tariff of Abominations” in the South, which consequently harmed the South’s economy. In response to this, in 1828, Calhoun secretly wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest which fought for the idea of nullification. It openly implied that the states should ignore the tariff within the states’ limits. This protest was a great continuation of the principles of the Compact Theory. This would, in due course, assist in the secession of multiple states from the Union because they felt that it was their right as states to apply slavery and the federal government should have no position in denying it, after all there was nothing in the constitution that said slavery should be illegal.

In 1832 Congress passed another protective tariff. This tariff enraged South Carolinians. Behind their leader John C. Calhoun they declared that the tariff, essentially, did not apply to South Carolina. President Andrew Jackson, who furious about the nullification of South Carolina’s decision to simply ignore the tariff threatened invasion of South Carolina. Calhoun, noticing his awkward position, resigned from his position of Vice President. Later, next year, Congress reduced the tariff. This event, however, was a great movement in the idea of nullification and secession and was a step towards the South seceding from the Union causing the catastrophic event of the Civil War.

In conclusion, the Civil War was caused by multiple efforts of states’ rightists for the implementation of the Compact Theory. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were one of the first steps made by the Compact Theorists to nullify laws made by the federal government. Another very important effort made by the states’ rightists was the South Carolina Exposition and Protest passed by John C. Calhoun to give states’ the right to ignore the tariff of abominations. Lastly, the efforts by John C. Calhoun and South Carolina to declare the tariff of 1832 null and void were a tremendous step towards Southern secession. The Civil War was caused by the idea that the states’ should be allowed to ignore federal laws they saw unconstitutional, which ended up including slavery for there actually was nothing in the Constitution that forbade slavery.

Grassroots Movements in the Age of Reform

During the 1830s and 1840s a tremendous amount of religious revival swept throughout America. This period is known as the Second Great Awakening. Much like the First Great Awakening there were multiple ministers and preachers who spoke on the horrors of hell. The Second Great Awakening did not have much affect in the South because of the abolitionist movements that went hand and hand with the Awakening. This period was important to the extreme because of its huge involvement with women and being the inspiration behind reform movements during the Age of Reform where a multitude of reform movements were instituted. The grassroots movements were exceedingly successful in achieving their goals when involving women’s rights, abolition, public education, and prison reform through the Seneca Falls convention organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the efforts of Theodore Weld and James Birney, the struggles of Horace Mann and Noah Webster, and the endeavors of Dorthea Dix.

Women’s rights were a great part of the grassroots movement of the Age of Reform, partly due to the fact that so many women were involved in the Second Great Awakening. The women were extremely successful in women’s rights reform. Women fought wholeheartedly for women’s property rights. During the Seneca Falls convention women insisted upon enfranchisement by putting forth their “Declaration of Rights Sentiments.” Women would later also became a large part of the abolitionist movement.

Theodore Weld and James Birney were huge supporters for abolition of slavery. Weld and Birney were both a large part of the achievements of the abolitionist movements during the Age of Reform. The difference between these two individuals and other abolitionists was that they were for gradual abolition rather than a radical and far more dangerous route of abolition of slavery. This was the correct path to take because others like John Brown simply lead reckless revolutions and raids killing large quantities of people. Weld and Birney both did much petitioning to Congress to end the abolition of slavery and were enormous civil rights advocates. One of Theodore Weld’s best accomplishments was setting up a school in New Jersey that accepted all people regardless of race or sex.

During the Age of Reform, education was a remarkable issue. Some of the most notable leaders in education reform were Noah Webster and Horace Mann. Noah Webster played a hefty function in education reform. Noah Webster, sometimes called the “Schoolmaster of the Republic,” was able to advance school textbooks. Webster spent 20 years laboring on his commonly know dictionary, Webster’s Dictionary, which was a magnificent step in modernizing the American linguistics. Horace Mann spent a lot of his time vocalizing the necessity of longer school terms, a more extended set of courses, and higher pay for instructors.

Prison reform was a gigantic subject all through the Age of Reform. Dorthea Dix was one most outstanding leaders of prison reform. Dix was able to help make the distinction between the mentally ill and the willfully obstinate. Dorthea Dix also campaigned to people in the Massachusetts legislature. She preached on the horrid treatment of the mentally ill and the atrocious state prison cells were. Her persistence created improved conditions in jail cells greatly contributing to prison reform.

To conclude, the grassroots movements in the Age of Reform were successful in achieving their goals. Women’s rights improvements were made during the Seneca Falls convention. Theodore Weld and James Birney were both contributed to the abolitionist movement through strong advocating for emancipation and civil rights. Education reform was made possible by Noah Webster and Horace Mann through the improvements in textbooks and advocating for an increase in teacher pay and school curriculum. Lastly, due largely to the labors of Dorthea Dix prison reform was made possible by the improvement of jail cell conditions.

America’s Hunger for Land through Nationalism and War

In the late 1700s and early 1800s the United States was stuck in between the conflicting powers of France and Britain. These two sides were heavily at war with one another and both disliked the idea of American trade with the other one. Both groups had instituted decrees that prevented the United States from trading with other nations. This included the Orders of Council which was put into effect by Britain which essentially prevented any neutral nations from trading with Frances as well as its allies. France responded to this in 1807 with the Milan Decree proclaiming that all ships that obeyed the Orders of Council would be seized by France. This was tremendously devastating to America’s economic system and due to extreme provocation resulted in the War of 1812, giving up all American hope for neutrality. America’s nationalism played a remarkable role in the formulation and application of the United States’ foreign policy in the early nineteenth century economically, politically, and imperialistically through the national unity created with hatred for Britain, the nationalism created by political leaders when declaring war on other nations, and the quests to acquire new land from additional nations.

The American economic structure during the French revolution was in ruin. This would ultimately cause a wave of nationalism. In the eyes of many American’s Britain was responsible for their economic situation. This was because of the numerous American merchant ships being denied trade by Britain to other nations, and the crews of the ships often being seized and impressed into service. Nationalism is often created when a nation has a common enemy, in this case, Britain. Due to the fact that many Americans were infuriated because of the devastating economy Americans united all with a common goal to strike back at Britain. This would lead to the War of 1812 which greatly increased nationalism in America against their common enemy, Britain. American nationalism also helped the economy due to new lands acquired by war with other nations, thereby giving America more farmland.

America also greatly altered politically when it came to foreign policy due to nationalism. It began to greatly increase an individual’s political favor to support war. This was because war united a country together against a common foe. The main foe was Britain in the war of 1812 and later Mexico during the Mexican-American war. Great examples of political leaders using war and nationalism to their advantage are James Monroe and James Polk. Monroe, for instance, based his foreign policy positions on the idea of American hegemony, or that the United States was dominant over the rest of the world, which in turn led to nationalism, all uniting under common belief that Americans were superior to the rest of the world and that they deserved other peoples land. James Polk also received political support during the Mexican-American war, because it once again unified America against a common ally, Mexicans.

Nationalists, over time, have tended to demonstrate imperialistic ideals. In the process of less than 100 years, from 1783-1853 America more than tripled its size. This was based on a nationalistic and imperialistic foreign policy entailing that the United States should unify together to bring the rest of the world under their control. This was also partially based on the idea that the United States had a superior and democratic system and it was obligated to share it with the rest of the world. Nationalists sought to make America’s foreign policy an imperial one. In this nationalists grandly succeeded due to the great expanse of newly acquired territories by the United States.

To conclude, American foreign policy was grandly altered due to nationalist ideals. The United States was significantly changed economically by the increase in nationalism. Politicians also changed their foreign policies because of the advantages of nationalism offered. The United States became extremely imperialistic because of nationalism as well, illustrating how nationalism and imperialism have often gone hand and hand historically. In general, nationalism played a large role in the formulation and function of American foreign policy in the early 1800s.